best research papers 2020

The top 10 journal articles of 2020

In 2020, APA’s 89 journals published more than 5,000 articles—the most ever and 25% more than in 2019. Here’s a quick look at the 10 most downloaded to date.

Vol. 52 No. 1 Print version: page 24

1. Me, My Selfie, and I: The Relations Between Selfie Behaviors, Body Image, Self-Objectification, and Self-Esteem in Young Women

Veldhuis, j., et al..

Young women who appreciate their bodies and consider them physical objects are more likely to select, edit, and post selfies to social media, suggests this study in Psychology of Popular Media (Vol. 9, No. 1). Researchers surveyed 179 women, ages 18 to 25, on how often they took selfies, how they selected selfies to post, how often they used filters and editing techniques, and how carefully they planned their selfie postings. They also assessed participants’ levels of body appreciation and dissatisfaction, self-objectification, and self-esteem. Higher levels of self-objectification were linked to more time spent on all selfie behaviors, while body appreciation was related to more time spent selecting selfies to post, but not frequency of taking or editing selfies. Body dissatisfaction and self-esteem were not associated with selfie behaviors. DOI: 10.1037/ppm0000206

2. A Closer Look at Appearance and Social Media: Measuring Activity, Self-Presentation, and Social Comparison and Their Associations With Emotional Adjustment

Zimmer-gembeck, m. j., et al..

This Psychology of Popular Media (online first publication) article presents a tool to assess young people’s preoccupation with their physical appearance on social media. Researchers administered a 21-item survey about social media to 281 Australian high school students. They identified 18 items with strong inter-item correlation centered on three categories of social media behavior: online self-presentation, appearance-related online activity, and appearance comparison. In a second study with 327 Australian university students, scores on the 18-item survey were found to be associated with measures of social anxiety and depressive symptoms, appearance-related support from others, general interpersonal stress, coping flexibility, sexual harassment, disordered eating, and other factors. The researchers also found that young women engaged in more appearance-related social media activity and appearance comparison than did young men. DOI: 10.1037/ppm0000277

3. The Novel Coronavirus (COVID-2019) Outbreak: Amplification of Public Health Consequences by Media Exposure

Garfin, d. r., et al..

Repeated media exposure to the COVID-19 pandemic may be associated with psychological distress and other public health consequences, according to this commentary in Health Psychology (Vol. 39, No. 5). The authors reviewed research about trends in health behavior and psychological distress as a response to media coverage of crises, including terrorist attacks, school shootings, and disease outbreaks. They found that repeated media exposure to collective crises was associated with increased anxiety and heightened acute and post-traumatic stress, with downstream effects on health outcomes such as new incidence of cardiovascular disease. Moreover, misinformation can further amplify stress responses and lead to misplaced or misguided health-protective and help-seeking behaviors. The authors recommended public health agencies use social media strategically, such as with hashtags, to keep residents updated during the pandemic. They also urged the public to avoid sensationalism and repeated coverage of the same information. DOI: 10.1037/hea0000875

4. Barriers to Mental Health Treatment Among Individuals With Social Anxiety Disorder and Generalized Anxiety Disorder

Goetter, e. m., et al..

This study in Psychological Services (Vol. 17, No. 1) indicates that 3 in 4 people who suffer from anxiety do not receive proper care. Researchers recruited 226 participants in the United States who were previously diagnosed with social anxiety disorder or generalized anxiety disorder and assessed their symptom severity and asked them to self-report any barriers to treatment. Shame and stigma were the highest cited barriers, followed by logistical and financial barriers and not knowing where to seek treatment. Participants with more severe symptoms reported more barriers to treatment than those with milder symptoms. Racial and ethnic minorities reported more barriers than racial and ethnic majorities even after controlling for symptom severity. The researchers called for increased patient education and more culturally sensitive outreach to reduce treatment barriers. DOI: 10.1037/ser0000254

5. The Construction of “Critical Thinking”: Between How We Think and What We Believe

This History of Psychology (Vol. 23, No. 3) article examines the emergence of “critical thinking” as a psychological concept. The author describes how, between World War I and World War II in the United States, the concept emerged out of growing concerns about how easily people’s beliefs could be changed and was constructed in a way that was independent of what people believed. The author delves into how original measurements of critical thinking avoided assumptions about the accuracy of specific real-world beliefs and details how subsequent critical thinking tests increasingly focused on logical abilities, often favoring outcome (what we believe) over process (how we think). DOI: 10.1037/hop0000145

6. Treatment of Alcohol Use Disorder: Integration of Alcoholics Anonymous and Cognitive Behavioral Therapy

Breuninger, m. m., et al..

This article in Training and Education in Professional Psychology (Vol. 14, No. 1) details how to work with alcohol use disorder patients who are participating in both cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) and Alcoholics Anonymous (AA). The authors point to distinctions between AA and CBT: The goal of AA is total abstinence and the primary therapeutic relationship is with a peer in recovery, while CBT takes a less absolute approach and the primary relationship is with a psychotherapist. The authors also point to commonalities: both approaches emphasize identifying and replacing dysfunctional beliefs and place value in social support. The authors recommend clinicians and trainees become more educated about AA and recommend a translation of the 12-step language into CBT terminology to bridge the gap. DOI: 10.1037/tep0000265

7. Positivity Pays Off: Clients’ Perspectives on Positive Compared With Traditional Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Depression

Geschwind, n., et al..

Positive cognitive behavioral therapy, a version of CBT focused on exploring exceptions to the problem rather than the problem itself, personal strengths, and embracing positivity, works well to counter depressive symptoms and build well-being, according to this study in Psychotherapy (Vol. 57, No. 3). Participants received a block of eight sessions of traditional CBT and a block of eight sessions of positive CBT. Researchers held in-depth interviews with 12 of these participants. Despite initial skepticism, most participants reported preferring positive CBT but indicated experiencing a steeper learning curve than with traditional CBT. Researchers attributed positive CBT’s favorability to four factors: feeling empowered, benefiting from effects of positive emotions, learning to appreciate baby steps, and rediscovering optimism as a personal strength. DOI: 10.1037/pst0000288

8. Targeted Prescription of Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy Versus Person-Centered Counseling for Depression Using a Machine Learning Approach

Delgadillo, j., & gonzalez salas duhne, p..

Amachine learning algorithm can identify which patients would derive more benefit from cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) versus counseling for depression, suggests research in this Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology (Vol. 88, No. 1) article. Researchers retrospectively explored data from 1,085 patients in the United Kingdom treated with either CBT or counseling for depression and discovered six patient characteristics—age, employment status, disability, and three diagnostic measures of major depression and social adjustment—relevant to developing an algorithm for prescribing the best approach. The researchers then used the algorithm to determine which therapy would work best for an additional 350 patients with depression. They found that patients receiving their optimal treatment type were twice as likely to improve significantly. DOI: 10.1037/ccp0000476

9. Traumatic Stress in the Age of COVID-19: A Call to Close Critical Gaps and Adapt to New Realities

Horesh, d., & brown, a. d..

This article in Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy (Vol. 12, No. 4) argues that COVID-19 should be examined from a post-traumatic stress perspective. The authors call for mental health researchers and clinicians to develop better diagnoses and prevention strategies for COVID-related traumatic stress; create guidelines and talking points for the media and government officials to use when speaking to an anxious, and potentially traumatized, public; and provide mental health training to professionals in health care, education, childcare, and occupational support in order to reach more people. DOI: 10.1037/tra0000592

10. Emotional Intelligence Predicts Academic Performance: A Meta-Analysis

Maccann, c., et al..

Students with high emotional intelligence get better grades and score higher on standardized tests, according to the research presented in this article in Psychological Bulletin (Vol. 146, No. 2). Researchers analyzed data from 158 studies representing more than 42,529 students—ranging in age from elementary school to college—from 27 countries. The researchers found that students with higher emotional intelligence earned better grades and scored higher on achievement tests than those with lower emotional intelligence. This finding was true even when controlling for intelligence and personality factors, and the association held regardless of age. The researchers suggest that students with higher emotional intelligence succeed because they cope well with negative emotions that can harm academic performance; they form stronger relationships with teachers, peers, and family; and their knowledge of human motivations and socialinteractions helps them understand humanities subject matter. DOI: 10.1037/bul0000219

5 interviews to listen to now

Psychology’s most innovative thinkers are featured on APA’s Speaking of Psychology podcast , which highlights important research and helps listeners apply psychology to their lives. The most popular episodes of 2020, as measured by the number of downloads in the first 30 days, were:

How to have meaningful dialogues despite political differences , with Tania Israel, PhD
Canine cognition and the survival of the friendliest , with Brian Hare, PhD
The challenges faced by women in leadership , with Alice Eagly, PhD
How to choose effective, science-based mental health apps , with Stephen Schueller, PhD
Psychedelic therapy , with Roland Griffiths, PhD

Listen to all of the Speaking of Psychology episodes .

Contact APA

	Type
1	journal	106.094 Q1	211	49	124	4844	35427	89	381.89	98.86	43.95
2	journal	37.044 Q1	39	3	13	897	955	13	100.11	299.00	27.78
3	journal	35.910 Q1	508	123	336	11462	13599	153	34.50	93.19	29.41
4	journal	30.448 Q1	306	47	136	3645	2240	136	11.14	77.55	26.67
5	journal	26.837 Q1	505	105	304	10805	10951	163	31.23	102.90	44.33
6	journal	24.342 Q1	892	439	1496	32820	53447	1207	31.30	74.76	40.19
7	journal	22.399 Q1	391	239	731	8584	13091	153	19.72	35.92	34.15
8	journal	22.344 Q1	359	95	353	6242	4811	351	10.33	65.71	23.89
9	journal	21.836 Q1	184	117	335	8842	13775	196	31.17	75.57	26.86
10	journal	21.048 Q1	217	127	400	9888	10807	183	28.36	77.86	38.85
11	journal	20.544 Q1	1184	1388	4522	14603	107246	1824	21.69	10.52	38.26
12	journal	19.139 Q1	352	83	227	5043	1938	221	7.00	60.76	16.91
13	journal	19.045 Q1	630	595	1363	16478	36243	729	27.23	27.69	43.99
14	journal	18.663 Q1	71	0	19	0	963	19	0.00	0.00	0.00
15	journal	18.587 Q1	23	11	16	0	802	16	47.57	0.00	81.69
16	journal	18.530 Q1	215	83	261	4493	2531	258	7.04	54.13	17.80
17	journal	18.509 Q1	1391	3770	8037	74917	160102	3840	19.40	19.87	38.12
18	journal	18.117 Q1	511	485	1066	13393	17008	461	13.24	27.61	35.19
19	journal	17.828 Q1	833	271	851	115878	50519	819	49.76	427.59	30.50
20	journal	17.701 Q1	223	75	273	3371	1946	268	6.24	44.95	13.84
21	journal	17.654 Q1	234	108	410	6448	4495	409	8.04	59.70	16.43
22	journal	17.507 Q1	398	178	590	11546	12604	360	19.83	64.87	41.91
23	journal	17.497 Q1	229	229	609	6629	16808	379	26.18	28.95	29.53
24	journal	17.300 Q1	639	336	654	13672	13100	504	19.88	40.69	37.01
25	journal	16.061 Q1	388	36	103	14097	4303	99	42.66	391.58	14.94
26	journal	16.009 Q1	467	169	540	11148	13815	304	23.17	65.96	36.44
27	journal	15.966 Q1	264	102	252	19168	11266	244	38.64	187.92	24.30
28	journal	15.827 Q1	140	106	297	4359	4041	62	12.99	41.12	41.35
29	journal	15.620 Q1	328	23	84	4178	2696	83	27.02	181.65	40.68
30	journal	14.943 Q1	115	16	42	403	896	41	24.10	25.19	77.78
31	journal	14.796 Q1	388	400	978	11477	15900	588	17.52	28.69	33.83
32	journal	14.780 Q1	123	0	13	0	374	11	12.56	0.00	0.00
33	journal	14.707 Q1	32	46	35	4815	2160	34	61.71	104.67	36.44
34	journal	14.618 Q1	160	70	247	587	5353	230	21.11	8.39	58.79
35	journal	14.605 Q1	109	23	72	5797	1938	70	14.90	252.04	45.57
36	journal	14.577 Q1	419	262	637	10044	17562	466	27.42	38.34	28.93
37	journal	14.293 Q1	421	123	346	10202	6211	207	17.40	82.94	32.86
38	journal	14.231 Q1	558	306	834	9499	20730	593	24.08	31.04	24.85
39	journal	14.175 Q1	210	28	92	3163	1260	86	10.59	112.96	42.59
40	journal	13.942 Q1	294	144	670	5180	12698	362	18.81	35.97	39.02
41	book series	13.670 Q1	210	14	42	3772	1271	39	23.96	269.43	26.09
42	journal	13.655 Q1	311	89	563	4857	6315	559	11.14	54.57	23.11
43	journal	13.609 Q1	165	93	250	5332	1699	250	6.02	57.33	15.88
44	journal	13.578 Q1	455	233	688	15608	13409	550	16.89	66.99	40.35
45	journal	13.315 Q1	136	180	471	6682	12109	368	24.27	37.12	26.28
46	journal	13.080 Q1	260	243	827	1865	14374	679	16.58	7.67	62.53
47	journal	12.511 Q1	635	252	983	61439	44032	979	38.71	243.81	32.40
48	journal	12.324 Q1	81	55	137	2838	862	137	6.20	51.60	17.36
49	journal	12.294 Q1	46	62	154	8174	4174	86	27.10	131.84	31.14
50	journal	12.288 Q1	44	60	79	4858	3323	78	42.06	80.97	33.06

Our most popular papers of 2020

Which Reading research publications got the most attention across the globe in 2020? We’ve scoured Altmetric data to bring you the top ten most talked about Reading-authored papers of the past year.

The 2020 Lancet Countdown report on health and climate change: responding to converging crises

Climate change could lead to global healthcare systems being overwhelmed in the same way they have been during the current COVID-19 pandemic, the authors of the latest world-leading report on climate and health have warned.

The 2020 Lancet Countdown report , produced by experts from around the world including Professor Elizabeth Robinson from the University of Reading, is urging urgent action on climate change to reduce the increasing threats to health, lives and livelihoods in all countries around the world.

Right now, people around the world face increasing extremes of heat, food and water insecurity, and changing patterns of infectious diseases. Responding to climate change today will bring about cleaner skies, healthier diets, and safer places to live–as well as reduce the risk factors of future infectious diseases.

The authors call for a coordinated immediate response to climate change alongside the pandemic, in order to avoid future health crises, improve public health, create a sustainable economy and protect the environment.

Origins of the sarsen megaliths at Stonehenge

A mystery speculated on for centuries has been solved as new research revealed the origin of Stonehenge’s giant sarsen stones to be West Woods, on the edge of Wiltshire’s Marlborough Downs.

Research jointly carried out by the University of Reading and published in the journal Science Advances , has pinpointed the source of the megaliths to an area around 15 miles north of the stone circle site.

The breakthrough came when a core – drilled from Stonehenge’s ‘Stone 58’ during repair work in the 1950s – was returned to English Heritage from Florida last year at the request of one of those involved at the time, Mr Robert Phillips. This presented a unique opportunity to analyse the interior of one of Stonehenge’s great sarsens.

The impact of social isolation and loneliness on children and young people during COVID-19

The move into lockdown as part of the control measures to avoid the spread of COVID-19 necessitated widespread social isolation. A review published in Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry which researchers from the Charlie Waller Institute contributed to, aimed to establish how loneliness and lockdown affect the mental health of children and adolescents.

The review covered articles published between 1946 and March 2020 based on 63 studies w 51,576 participants. It found a clear association between loneliness and mental health problems in children and adolescents, findings which were consistent across studies of children, adolescents, and young adults. There may also be gender differences, with some research indicating that loneliness was more strongly associated with elevated depression in girls and with elevated social anxiety in boys.

This is of particular relevance in the COVID-19 context, as politicians in different countries considered the length of time that schools should remain closed, and the implementation of social distancing within schools.

International scientists formulate a roadmap for insect conservation and recovery

Professor Simon Potts contributed to a review in Nature Ecology and Evolution of the evidence that reducing insect abundance, diversity and biomass across the globe is a very real and serious threat that must be urgently addressed.

The review proposes a global roadmap for insect conservation and recovery alongside the immediate implementation of measures to slow or stop insect declines. These actions include conservation particularly of threatened species and mitigation of alien species along with a reduction in pollution and pesticide use, and an increase in land use diversity in agriculture. Medium-term action is for further research and making sure we make best use of the currently held data and collections. Longer-term action includes the building of partnerships and a global monitoring programme.

Most importantly, the review says that there is currently enough information on some key causes of insect decline to formulate solutions. And that a learning-by-doing approach ensures that these conservation strategies are robust to newly emerging pressures and threats.

Sea-ice-free Arctic during the last interglacial period supports fast future loss

Researchers from the Meteorology Department published new research in Nature Climate Change about Arctic sea ice loss and how we can predict this better in the future. While knowledge of past Arctic temperatures is robust, thanks to the available observations, the interpretation of Arctic sea-ice changes during the last interglacial period (approximately 130,000–116,000 years ago) has been much less certain.

To address this question, researchers used the latest modelling techniques to compare conclusions from previous models and to create a fully linked atmosphere–land–ocean–ice climate model for the last interglacial period. The new model created a much-improved representation of Arctic summers during the warmer interglacial climate compared with previous model simulations.

Simulating an ice-free summer Arctic offers a unique solution to the longstanding puzzle of what occurred to drive the temperatures to rise during last interglacial period Arctic and will provide independent support for predictions of ice-free conditions by summer 2035.

Is mere exposure enough? The effects of bilingual environments on infant cognitive development

Recent research in Royal Society Open Science looked at the idea of the ‘bilingual advantage’ among young children. The most common explanation is that managing two languages during language learning constantly strengthens learning ability. However, this theory cannot explain why this bilingual advantage has also been found in infants before they can speak.

To understand why this should be, researchers carried out four separate eye-tracking tasks in seven- to nine-month-old infants who were being raised in either bilingual or monolingual homes. The results suggest that infants raised in bilingual homes are faster at disengaging attention in order to shift attention to a new stimulus and also switch attention more frequently between two visual stimuli.

This raises the possibility that infants adapt to bilingual environments partly by disengaging attention faster and switching attention more frequently. This supports the researcher’s proposal that bilingual infants adapt by placing more weight on novel information in order to collect more samples from their more varied environments.

Ensemble CME modelling constrained by heliospheric imager observations

Improving the prediction of space weather is the subject of a new study in AGU Advances . Forecasting the arrival of coronal mass ejections (large eruptions of magnetised plasma from the Sun) at the Earth is an important service since these eruptions are the main cause of severe space weather and can disrupt technology such as satellites, communications networks and power grids.

Improving these forecasts is an important area of space weather research, particularly measuring and improving predictions of when coronal mass ejections might arrive at the Earth. Special imagers can take pictures of the heliosphere of the sun and the study shows that these can be used to reduce the uncertainty and improve the accuracy of predictions.

NASA and ESA are currently planning the next spacecraft missions that will observe the Sun and space for space weather forecasting. This proof‐of‐concept study provides some evidence that it would be useful to include a heliospheric imager on future space missions.

The Global Methane Budget 2000–2017

The Global Carbon Project, an international consortium of multidisciplinary scientists, including those from our University, has created a global methane budget in Earth System Science Data . With emissions of methane increasing, making it the second most important greenhouse gas after carbon dioxide, the budget is important for assessing realistic ways to mitigate climate change.

Two major challenges in estimating the budget are the variety of geographically overlapping methane sources and the destruction of methane in the atmosphere. The budget was built by synthesising a large collection of new and published methods and results, including atmospheric observations and inversions, process-based models for land surface emissions and atmospheric chemistry and inventories of emissions.

The Global Carbon Project aims to continually update this methane budget regularly (approximately every 2–3 years). Each update will produce a more recent ten-year methane budget, highlight changes in emissions and trends, and incorporate newly available data and model improvements.

Biomarker-estimated flavan-3-ol intake is associated with lower blood pressure in cross-sectional analysis in EPIC Norfolk

People who consume a diet including flavanol-rich foods and drinks, including tea, apples and berries, could benefit from lower blood pressure, according to the first study using objective measures of the diets of thousands of UK residents, published in Scientific Reports .

In contrast to most other studies investigating links between nutrition and health, the researchers did not rely on study participants reporting their diet, but instead measured flavanol intake objectively using nutritional biomarkers – indicators of dietary intake, metabolism or nutritional status that are present in our blood.

The difference in blood pressure between those with the lowest 10% of flavanol intake and those with the highest 10% is comparable to meaningful changes in blood pressure observed in those following a Mediterranean diet or the medium sodium intake in the DASH sodium trial. Notably, the effect was more pronounced in participants with hypertension.

Precipitation modification by ionization

Nuclear bomb tests during the Cold War may have changed rainfall patterns thousands of miles from the detonation sites, new research has revealed.

Scientists at the University have researched how the electric charge released by radiation from the test detonations, carried out predominantly by the USA and Soviet Union in the 1950s and 1960s, affected rainclouds at the time.

The study, published in Physical Review Letters , used historic records between 1962 and 1964 from a research station in Scotland. Scientists compared days with high and low radioactively generated charge, finding that clouds were visibly thicker, and there was 24% more rain on average on the days with more radioactivity.

The Altmetric Attention Score (shown in the badges above) is a weighted count of all of the online attention Altmetric have found for an individual research output. This includes mentions in public policy documents and references in Wikipedia, the mainstream news, social networks, blogs and more. For this blog we’ve featured the top ten highest-scoring publications with a Reading-affiliated author published between 1 January and 15 December 2020.

University of Reading cookie policy

We use cookies on reading.ac.uk to improve your experience. You can find out more about our cookie policy . By continuing to use our site you accept these terms, and are happy for us to use cookies to improve your browsing experience.

Browse Econ Literature

Working papers
Software components
Book chapters
JEL classification

More features

Subscribe to new research

RePEc Biblio

Author registration.

Economics Virtual Seminar Calendar NEW!

Some searches may not work properly. We apologize for the inconvenience.

Explanations

More services and features

Follow serials, authors, keywords & more

Public profiles for Economics researchers

Various research rankings in Economics

RePEc Genealogy

Who was a student of whom, using RePEc

Curated articles & papers on economics topics

Upload your paper to be listed on RePEc and IDEAS

New papers by email

Subscribe to new additions to RePEc

EconAcademics

Blog aggregator for economics research

Cases of plagiarism in Economics

About RePEc

Initiative for open bibliographies in Economics

News about RePEc

Questions about IDEAS and RePEc

RePEc volunteers

Participating archives

Publishers indexing in RePEc

Privacy statement

Corrections.

Found an error or omission?

Opportunities to help RePEc

Get papers listed

Have your research listed on RePEc

Open a RePEc archive

Have your institution's/publisher's output listed on RePEc

Get RePEc data

Use data assembled by RePEc

2020 year in review: Highlights from our publishing

Top 10 lists of most popular insights, overall top 10 for the year, mckinsey quarterly, mckinsey global institute, editors’ picks, diversity & inclusion, marketing, consumer, and retail, organization, strategy & corporate finance, sustainability.

A tale of 2020 in 20 McKinsey charts

Twenty images that offer a lens on 2020

Top reports this year.

Portrait of a mature businesswoman having a meeting with her team in a modern office

Women in the Workplace 2022

Female friends shopping together in clothing boutique.

State of Fashion report archive (2017-2023)

White weathervane on blue gradient background

McKinsey’s Global Banking Annual Review archive: 2014 to 2022

Diversity wins: How inclusion matters

How executives can help sustain value creation for the long term

McKinsey’s Private Markets Annual Review: 2017 to 2022

New features this year, we are mckinsey, the mckinsey crossword, mckinsey’s annual reading list, 2020 favorites from gen z colleagues, new experiences this year, what now decisive actions to emerge stronger in the next normal, mckinsey for kids, do you know your life’s purpose, popular special collections this year.

The Next Normal: Emerging stronger from the coronavirus pandemic

COVID Response Center

McKinsey and the World Economic Forum

McKinsey on Books

The graduate’s guide to the world of work

Popular podcasts this year.

In this year of lockdowns, listeners tuned in to reflect and learn—how to be more productive, more inclusive, and more resilient in the face of adversity. Here are some of our most streamed podcasts of 2020.

Listen to more McKinsey Podcasts

Uncovering the state of fashion

The future of air travel

The mass personalization of change: Transformation starts one individual at a time

The mass personalization of change: Large-scale impact, one individual at a time

Building a business within a business: How to power continual organic growth

Getting the measure of corporate Asia

Meet Generation Z: Shaping the future of shopping

Newsletters.

The editors of our four most-read email newsletters and multimedia series chose their favorite issues of the year to share with you. Whether daily, weekly, or monthly, our newsletter offerings span functional, industry, and news-based topics—and we’re adding more in 2021.

The Shortlist

The Next Normal

The Five Fifty

Popular webinars from mckinsey live.

The COVID-19 pandemic has created and exacerbated countless challenges for leaders, organizations, and communities. In our most popular McKinsey Live webinars, McKinsey experts brought these issues to the forefront and offered perspectives on navigating beyond the crisis to shape the next normal.

Learn more about McKinsey Live

New at McKinsey blog: 2020 year in review

Mckinsey global institute: twelve highlights from our 2020 research, covid response center’s year in review.

Building a stronger, more inclusive US workforce

Leading voices on the pandemic

The emotional toll of COVID-19

Acknowledgments.

McKinsey Global Publishing would like to thank, first and foremost, the many authors of these articles and other insights for their contributions and analysis.

And we want to acknowledge the many direct contributors who offered vital energy and expertise—under extraordinary personal and professional circumstances—to the development, editing, risk review, copyediting, fact checking, data visualization, design, production, and dissemination of all of McKinsey’s content over the past year.

McKinsey Global Publishing

Raju Narisetti

Global Editorial Director

Lucia Rahilly

Julia Arnous, Diane Brady, Richard Bucci, Lang Davison, Tom Fleming, Roberta Fusaro, Eileen Hannigan, Heather Hanselman, Justine Jablonska, Bill Javetski, Jason Li, Cait Murphy, Josh Rosenfield, Astrid Sandoval, David Schwartz, Daniella Seiler, Mark Staples, Rick Tetzeli, Barbara Tierney, and Monica Toriello

Digital innovation and audience development

Nicole Adams, Heather Andrews, Mike Borruso, Sherri Capers, Torea Frey, Mary Halpin, Eleni Kostopoulos, and Philip Mathew

Vanessa Burke, Heather Byer, Nancy Cohn, Roger Draper, Drew Holzfeind, Julie Macias, LaShon Malone, Pamela Norton, Kanika Punwani, and Sarah Thuerk

Visual storytelling

Victor Cuevas, Nicole Esquerre, Richard Johnson, Maya Kaplun, Stephen Landau, Janet Michaud, Matthew Perry, Dan Redding, Jonathon Rivait, Dan Spector, and Nathan Wilson

Editorial and digital production

Michael Allen, Matt Baumer, Elana Brown, Andrew Cha, Paromita Ghosh, Gwyn Herbein, Chris Konnari, Milva Mantilla, Katrina Parker, Charmaine Rice, Dana Sand, Katie Shearer, Venetia Simcock, Chandan Srivastava, Sean Stebner, Sneha Vats, Pooja Yadav, and Belinda Yu

Social media/video

Devin Brown, Chelsea Bryan, Mona Hamouly, Lauren Holmes, Simon London, Puneet Mishra, Kathleen O’Leary, Elizabeth Schaub, and Rita Zonius

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Publications
Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

Advanced Search
Journal List
Healthcare (Basel)

The Top 100 Most Cited Articles Published in Dentistry: 2020 Update

Faris yahya asiri.

1 Department of Preventive Dentistry, College of Dentistry, King Faisal University, Al-Ahsa 31982, Saudi Arabia

Estie Kruger

2 International Research Collaboration—Oral Health and Equity, School of Human Sciences, Faculty of Science, The University of Western Australia, Perth, WA 6009, Australia; [email protected] (E.K.); [email protected] (M.T.)

Marc Tennant

Associated data.

This bibliometric review is aimed to analyze the top 100 most-cited publications in dentistry and to compare its outcomes. A literature search was performed using Elsevier’s Scopus, without any restriction of language, publication year, or study design. Of 336,381 articles, the top 100 were included based on their citation count, which ranged from 638 to 4728 citations (Feijoo et al., 326 to 2050). The most productive decade was the 2000s, with 40 articles on the list (Feijoo et al., 1980s: 26). Marx RE (7%) was the major contributor in this study (Feijoo et al., Socransky SS: 9%), and almost half (48%) of articles were from the USA. Of the top 100 articles, 26% focused on periodontology (Feijoo et al., periodontology: 43%), while 17% of the total were published in the Journal of Dental Research (Feijoo et al., Journal of Clinical Periodontology: 20%). Most of the publications were narrative reviews/expert opinion (36%), (Feijoo et al., case series: 22%), and were within the evidence level V (64%) (Feijoo et al., 54%). The citation count that a paper secures is not necessarily a reflection of research’s quality, however, the current analysis provides the latest citation trends in dentistry.

1. Introduction

As a science, dentistry has reached a high maturity level in recent decades [ 1 ]. In academia, journals play a crucial role by disseminating technical and scholarly work, peer-review and evaluating research, archiving such research, and providing a foundation for scholarly credits [ 2 ]. In 2004, Olk and Griffith stated that journals serve as the primary source of knowledge in a particular specialty. They argued that the boundaries of a given discipline are pushed by scholars, however, journals are essential to advance the main body of knowledge [ 3 ]. The American Journal of Dental Science, the world’s first dental journal, began its publication in 1839 [ 4 ]. Since then, journals in dentistry have been performing as a mode of communication and source of knowledge within the dental community and other related fields. Hence, valid and reliable tools are necessary to analyze and document several changes that may occur in the lifetime of a single academic journal or group of journals [ 2 ].

Citations are potential indicators of a publication’s impact in this expanding scientific literary environment [ 5 ]. A citation is an alphanumeric expression that acknowledges a particular subject’s contribution to others’ research [ 6 , 7 ]. Citation analysis is a bibliometric method to identify articles with the greatest impact on research and the clinical community in a given discipline [ 8 ], providing the foundation for developing new research lines, techniques, and theories. This method has been adopted in different dentistry subfields including endodontics, orthodontics, periodontology, implant dentistry, prosthodontics, oral and maxillofacial surgery, dental traumatology, dental caries, oral squamous cell carcinoma, oral submucous fibrosis, oral leukoplakia, cleft lip and palate, and medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw (MRONJ) [ 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 ]. The definition of “classic article” has been a controversial topic across disciplines, and the most commonly suggested criterion has been the securing of a certain citation count, for instance, at least 400 citations [ 8 , 23 , 24 ]. However, a publication having accomplished 100 or more citations can also be termed as a “classic publication,” depending upon the field under consideration, such as dentistry [ 25 ].

This bibliometric review aimed to identify and analyze the scientific activity of dental sciences up to 2020. The Elsevier’s Scopus database was utilized to accomplish three specific objectives: (a) characterize the dental research in association with output, impact, geographic origin, authorship, topic, methodology design, and evidence level; (b) thematically categorizing research in dental areas, analyzing their interactions and evaluating their up-to-date trends; (c) assess any changes in citation trends of dentistry articles when compared with a similar, but much earlier study, published by Feijoo et al. [ 9 ] in 2014.

2.1. Citation Count, Citation Density, and Current Citation Index

The primary characteristics of the top 100 most-cited articles in dentistry are shown in Supplementary Table S1 . Overall, the 100 most-cited articles published in dentistry journals achieved a total of 113,482 (Scopus) and 214,642 (Google Scholar) citations; with the citation count varying between 638 and 4728 (Scopus), and 138 and 8281 (Google Scholar). According to Scopus, 33 articles exceeded 1000 citations; with 33 articles securing more than 2000 citations as per Google Scholar. The most cited article, with a total of 4728 (Scopus), 8281 (Google Scholar) citations, was as a clinical trial titled “Periodontal Disease in Pregnancy II. Correlation between Oral Hygiene and Periodontal Condition” [ 26 ], and was published in the Acta Odontologica Scandinavica . Its citation density was 84, with the current citation index of 269. The second most cited article, with a total of 4062 (Scopus), 7873 (Google Scholar) citations, was similar to the first article, but was published one year earlier titled “Periodontal disease in pregnancy I. Prevalence and severity” [ 27 ], and was also published in the Acta Odontologica Scandinavica . Its citation density was 71, with the current citation index of 232. The third most cited article, with a total of 3392 (Scopus), 6257 (Google Scholar) citations, was also a clinical trial titled “A 15-year study of osseointegrated implants in the treatment of the edentulous jaw” [ 28 ] and was published in the International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery. Its citation density was 117, with the current citation index of 96.

As per citation density, a review by Guo and DiPietro [ 29 ] has the highest score, i.e., 186. In the second rank, with a citation density of 181, is an article related to the category of classification or tools for assessing results [ 30 ]. The third-ranked article (citation density of 167) is a position paper by Ruggiero et al. [ 31 ]. According to the current citation index 2020, the top-ranked article was a review published in 2010, securing 345 citations [ 29 ]. The second-ranked article was a recommendation paper related to the category of classification or tools for assessing results written by Schiffman et al. [ 30 ] in 2014, with 299 citations. The third-ranked article was a clinical trial by Sillness and Löe, which counted 269 citations [ 26 ].

According to the Shapiro–Wilk test, the distribution of data regarding citation count, citation density, and article age was not normal ( p < 0.01). A significant trend towards a higher citation count with article age was observed (r = 0.832, p < 0.01) ( Figure 1 A). However, a non-significant trend towards an increased citation density with the age of publication was observed (r = 0.176, p = 0.129) ( Figure 1 B).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is healthcare-09-00356-g001.jpg

Association of ( A ) citation count and ( B ) citation density with the age of publication. The dot represents individual publication and line represents trendline.

2.2. Distribution by Year

The top 100 most-cited articles were published between 1955 [ 32 ] and 2014 [ 30 , 31 ]. The most prolific year in terms of publications was 2004, with seven publications, followed by 1997, 1998, 2003, and 2007 with five articles each. The year with most citations was 1998, with 6829 citations, followed by 2004 and 2003, with 6190 and 5879 citations, differently. The decade with most publications ( n = 40) and citations ( n = 35,743) was the 2000s ( Figure 2 A).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is healthcare-09-00356-g002.jpg

( A ) Citation analysis of the top 100 most-cited articles over the decades. ( B ) The contribution of countries to the top 100 articles.

2.3. Contribution of Countries

The top 100 most-cited publications originated from 15 countries, including Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom (UK), and the United States of America (USA) ( Figure 2 B and Figure 3 A). According to the number of publications, most of the articles originated from the United States of America ( n = 48), followed by Sweden ( n = 14), Belgium ( n = 6), Switzerland ( n = 6), UK ( n = 5), Denmark ( n = 4), Canada ( n = 3), Finland ( n = 2), France ( n = 2), Germany ( n = 2), Italy ( n = 2), Netherlands ( n = 2), Norway ( n = 2), Australia ( n = 1), and Brazil ( n = 1).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is healthcare-09-00356-g003.jpg

( A ) Network visualization per author (Elsevier’s Scopus data 1980–2010). ( B ) Network visualization per count (Elsevier’s Scopus data 1990–2010). ( C ) Network visualization per journal (Elsevier’s Scopus data 1990–2010). ( D ) Network visualization per author keywords (Elsevier’s Scopus data 1990–2010).

2.4. Contribution of Authors

A total of 264 authors contributed to the top 100 most-cited articles. Many of the articles ( n = 84) had between one and six authors, but publications with two authors were the most common ( n = 27). The majority of the contributions were made by Marx RE ( n = 7, 8230 citations), followed by Löe H ( n = 4, 12,668), Lekholm U ( n = 4, 6654), Haffajee AD ( n = 4, 5313), Socransky SS ( n = 4, 4843), Albrektsson T ( n = 4, 4658), De Munck J ( n = 4, 3772), and Genco RJ ( n = 4, 3014) ( Table 1 and Figure 3 B).

Contribution of authors to the top 100 most-cited articles in dentistry.

Author Name *	Number of Articles	Citation Count
Marx RE	7	8230
Löe H	4	12,668
Lekholm U	4	6654
Haffajee AD	4	5313
Socransky SS	4	4843
Albrektsson T	4	4658
De Munck J	4	3772
Genco RJ	4	3014
Brånemark PI	3	6140
Mehrotra B	3	3183
Ruggiero SL	3	3183
Lambrechts P	3	3156
Van Landuyt K	3	3049
Van Meerbeek B	3	3049
Yoshida Y	3	2620
Sjögren U	3	2444
Sundqvist G	3	2444
Lindhe J	3	2439
Zambon JJ	3	2144
Berglundh T	3	2112

* Due to a high number of contributing authors to the top 100 most-cited articles, it was not possible to mention all the authors in a table. Hence, the authors who contributed to ≥3 articles were included in the table.

2.5. Journal of Publication

Overall, the top 100 most-cited articles in dentistry were published in both specialized and comprehensive periodicals ( n = 31) ( Table 2 and Figure 3 C). The journal with the greatest number of publications was the Journal of Dental Research ( n = 17, 17,836 citations), followed by Journal of Periodontology ( n = 11, 12,141), Journal of Clinical Periodontology ( n = 9, 8461), Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery ( n = 8, 8873), Dental Materials ( n = 7, 6220), Journal of Endodontics ( n = 5, 3927), and Periodontology 2000 ( n = 4, 3391).

List of journals in which the top 100 most-cited articles were published.

JIF (2019) *	5-Year JIF *	No. of Articles	Citation Count
4.914	5.844	17	17,836
3.742	3.614	11	12,141
5.241	5.213	9	8461
1.642	2.020	8	8873
4.495	5.386	7	6220
3.118	3.380	5	3927
7.718	8.888	4	3391
2.068	2.987	3	4200
1.601	1.810	3	3345
2.444	2.727	3	2915
1.573	1.785	2	8549
2.320	2.987	2	3996
2.135	2.558	2	2310
2.495	2.330	2	2166
0.679	1.140	2	2064
2.803	2.950	2	1816
1.960	2.405	2	1814
3.723	4.044	2	1723
2.220	2.225	2	1667
2.038	1.863	1	1651
3.979	-	1	1585
2.213	2.954	1	1248
1.513	1.739	1	968
1.260	2.421	1	941
1.452	1.606	1	781
1.931	2.112	1	752
1.200	0.917	1	735
3.242	4.265	1	725
3.801	3.418	1	721
1.490	1.692	1	678
1.322	1.371	1	649

* Journal Citation Report (JCR) 2019. Abbreviation: JIF = Journal impact factor. Source for impact factor: https://www.jcr.clarivate.com (accessed on 5 January 2021).

A statistically non-significant trend ( p = 0.204) was observed between a journal age and the number of articles published in that journal. However, a statistically significant trend ( p < 0.05) was observed between the impact factor of the journal and the number of articles published in that journal.

2.6. Field of Interest

For the 100 most-cited articles, the field of interest for the majority were related to Periodontology ( n = 26, 32,410 citations), adhesive restorations ( n = 14, 11,915), implantology ( n = 13, 15,592), oral medicine/pathology ( n = 12, 12,785), endodontics ( n = 8, 5936), oral hygiene ( n = 8, 10,643), bone morphology/histology ( n = 7, 6943), oral biology/morphology ( n = 4, 5862), regenerative dentistry ( n = 2, 2228), orthodontics ( n = 2, 1814), saliva/biochemistry ( n = 1, 917), pain dysfunction/orofacial pain syndrome ( n = 1, 941), dental radiology ( n = 1, 735), and behavior management ( n = 1, 735) ( Table 3 ).

Distribution of fields of interest, study designs, and evidence levels of the top 100 most-cited articles.

Variable	Publications per	Citation Count	Median (min-max)	-Value

Periodontology	26%	32,410	818.5 (638–4728)	= 0.274
Adhesive Restorations	14%	11,915	724 (638–1560)
Implantology	13%	15,592	838 (649–3341)
Oral Medicine/Pathology	12%	12,785	927.5 (662–1798)
Oral Hygiene	8%	10,643	1157.5 (717–1311)
Endodontics	8%	5936	780 (656–883)
Bone morphology/Histology	7%	6943	845 (692–1813)
Oral Biology/Morphology	4%	5862	1450.5 (756–2517)
Regenerative Dentistry (Stem cells)	2%	2228	1114 (979–1249)
Orthodontics	2%	1814	907 (719–1095)
Pain dysfunction/Orofacial pain syndrome	1%	941	941 (941)
Saliva/Biochemistry	1%	917	917 (917)
Behavior Management	1%	735	735 (735)
Dental Radiology	1%	735	735 (735)

Narrative review/Expert opinion	36%	34,628	831.5 (637–2517)	= 0.145
Clinical trial	24%	34,296	952 (638–4602)
Classification or tool for evaluating results	11%	14,072	1099 (703–2350),
Systematic review/Meta-analysis	9%	6627	713 (664–845)
In vitro study	7%	7561	808 (656–1813)
Animal study	4%	4063	884.5 (831–1463)
New material or technique	4%	3048	741.5 (655–910)
Cohort study	2%	1879	939.5 (883–996)
Letter to editor	1%	1798	1798 (1798)
Consensus report	1%	767	767 (767)
Randomized controlled trial	1%	717	717 (717)

2.7. Methodological Design of the Publication

The most common methodological design in the top 100 publications was literature review/expert opinion ( n = 36, 34,628 citations), followed by clinical trial ( n = 24, 34,296), classification or tool for assessing results ( n = 11, 14,072), systematic review/meta-analysis ( n = 9, 6627), in vitro study ( n = 7, 7561), animal study ( n = 4, 4063), new material or technique ( n = 4, 3048), cohort study ( n = 2, 1879), consensus report ( n = 1, 767), randomized controlled trial ( n = 1, 717), and letter to editor ( n = 1, 1798) ( Table 3 ).

2.8. Evidence Level of Publication

The top 100 most-cited publications could be classified into all evidence levels ( Table 3 ). Most of the articles were within evidence level V ( n = 64, 65,937 citations), followed by evidence level IV ( n = 24, 34,296), evidence level 1 ( n = 9, 6627), evidence level III ( n = 2, 1879), and evidence level II ( n = 1, 717). Among these evidence levels, the total citation counts (r = −0.226, p = 0.078) and the citation density (r = 0.082, p = 0.633) did not vary significantly.

2.9. Author Keywords

A total of 538 keywords were identified from the top 100 most-cited articles ( Figure 3 D). The most frequently used keyword was osseointegration ( n = 6), followed by dental implants ( n = 5), periodontal disease ( n = 4), periodontitis ( n = 3), review ( n = 3), surface roughness ( n = 3), dentin ( n = 3), epidemiology ( n = 3), and wound healing ( n = 3).

2.10. Comparison with the Bibliometric Analysis by Feijoo et al.

Table 4 depicts the main differences between the present study and the bibliometric analysis performed by Feijoo et al. [ 9 ]. In the current study, for screening and identifying the most-cited articles, the author utilized Scopus as the benchmark database and used Google Scholar to crossmatch the citation data. On the contrary, Feijoo et al. [ 9 ] employed the Web of Science as the benchmark database only. A total of 10 bibliometric parameters were evaluated in the current analysis as compared to Feijoo et al. [ 9 ] in which 7 bibliometric variables were assessed. For an unknown reason, the journal Acta Odontologica Scandinavica was not included in the study by Feijoo et al. [ 9 ]. Interestingly, the 1st and 2nd ranked articles in the present analysis were published in the Acta Odontologica Scandinavica . In the present analysis, 48 articles present in the study conducted by Feijoo et al. [ 9 ], could secure their position. In the present analysis, an increase of almost two-fold in the total citation counts of the top 100 most-cited articles (113,482 citations) was observed as compared to Feijoo et al. [ 9 ] (52,635 citations). According to the Web of Science, the range of citation counts in the present study varied between 3 and 4321, as compared to Feijoo et al. [ 9 ] in which the range was between 326 and 2050. According to the Web of Science, 4 and 35 articles could secure ≥1000 and ≥500 citations respectively, in the study conducted by Feijoo et al. [ 9 ]. However, in the current analysis, 33 and 100 articles secured ≥1000 and ≥500 citations, respectively. The decade with the majority of publications was the 2000s (40%) in the present analysis as compared to the study by Feijoo et al. [ 9 ] in which the 1980s was the most productive decade in terms of the number of top-cited articles (26%). In the present study, publications having two authors (27%) were the most common as compared to the study by Feijoo et al. [ 9 ] in which single-author papers (25%) were the most frequent. The biggest contribution was made by Marx RE (7%) in the current study, as compared to Feijoo et al. [ 9 ] in which Socransky SS made the biggest contribution (9%). The Journal of Dental Research (17%) was the most prolific in the current analysis, compared to the Journal of Clinical Periodontology (20%) in the Feijoo et al. study [ 9 ]. In both the analyses, articles related to periodontology were the most cited ones. In terms of study design, narrative review/expert opinion (36%) was the most commonly cited methodological design in the current study as compared to an analysis by Feijoo et al. [ 9 ] in which case series (22%) was the most frequently cited study design. In terms of evidence level of the publications, articles having evidence level V were the most cited in both the studies.

Comparative analysis of the differences between the present study and Feijoo et al. [ 9 ].

Feijoo et al. [ ]	Present Study

Clarivate Analytics’ Web of Science (Benchmark)	Elsevier’s Scopus (Benchmark)
-	Google Scholar
-

7	10

Total citation count: 52,635 (WoS) - - Range of citation count: 326–2050 (WoS) - - Articles with ≥1000 citations: 4 Articles with ≥500 citations: 35	Total citation count: 113,482 (ES) 214,642 (GS) Range of citation count: 638 and 4728 (ES) 138 and 8281 (GS) Articles with ≥1000 citations: 33 Articles with ≥500 citations: 100

Articles with single author: 25 Articles with two authors: 18 Articles with more than 6 authors: 12 Leading author: Socransky SS ( = 9)	Articles with single author: 20 Articles with two authors: 27 Articles with more than 6 authors: 16 Leading author: Marx RE ( = 7)

Decade with most publications: 1980s (26%)	Decade with most publications: 2000s (40%)

1st = Periodontology (43%) 2nd = Implantology (11%) 3rd = Adhesive restorations (8%)	1st = Periodontology (26%) 2nd = Adhesive restorations (14%) 3rd = Implantology (13%)

1st = Cases series (22%) 2nd = Narrative review/expert opinion (19%) 3rd = Classifications or tools for evaluating results (13%)	1st = Narrative review/expert opinion (36%) 2nd = Clinical trial (24%) 3rd = Classifications or tools for evaluating results (11%)

EL V = 54%	EL V = 64%

Total number of journals: 22	Total number of journals: 32
1st = (20%) 2nd = (18%) 3rd = (16%)	1st = (17%) 2nd = (11%) 3rd = (9%)

Abbreviation: EL V = evidence level Five; ES = Elsevier’s Scopus; GS = Google Scholar; WoS = Web of Science.

3. Discussion

Authors’ bibliometric analysis allows readers to gain historical insight and development of a particular specialty by identifying and analyzing the most-cited publications that could assist researchers in understanding the emerging themes and future trends for a particular discipline [ 33 , 34 , 35 ]. For instance, the number of citations a publication receives could indicate other researchers’ interest in using the information for their research. Highly cited articles could display a tendency in clinical practice and may therefore be considered to produce greater research and clinical interest in the reported disciplines [ 36 ]. Being “most-cited” article reflects its more frequent contribution to the studies published afterward; however, this characteristic alone does not provide sufficient information regarding its current impact and scientific quality, as the main motive of citers in the selection of reference is in establishing the utility within research, rather than scientific quality [ 37 , 38 , 39 ]. As per the definition of a “classic article”, all the articles included in this study are called “classic articles” [ 8 , 22 , 23 ].

The accuracy of bibliometric analyses might be negatively influenced by the limitations of the search engine used. Elsevier’s Scopus, Google Scholar, and Clarivate Analytics’ Web of Science may differ quantitatively or qualitatively concerning the citation count of a publication depending upon the discipline of the study [ 12 , 16 , 40 ], journals [ 41 ], and years [ 42 ] in which they were published. Additionally, some publications might not be available in all of these search engines [ 16 , 25 , 43 , 44 ]. There were several reasons for not selecting either Google Scholar or Web of Science databases as the benchmark for this analysis. For instance, Google Scholar includes citations from non-scholarly publications including dissertations and thesis, conference papers, technical reports, books, and preprints, which may affect the analysis of the most-cited articles when the target is more specific, as in the present study [ 44 ]. However, in Web of Science, missing references are a considerable issue [ 40 ], which is a likely reason why Buonocore’s highly cited paper [ 32 ] in Google Scholar (4367 citations) and Scopus (1560 citations) was so under cited in Web of Science (427 citations). Similarly, Löe’s [ 45 ] highly cited article in Google Scholar (4019 citations) and Scopus (2257 citations) received only 3 citations in Web of Science. It is important to note that both the abovementioned articles were present in the Web of Science “All Databases” section, and not in the Web of Science “Core Collection”. One of the several reasons for selecting Scopus as the benchmark database was that it combines the features of PubMed and Web of Science. These combined characteristics enable improved utility for medical literature research and academic requirements (i.e., citation analysis) [ 43 ]. Moreover, Scopus is regarded as the largest citation and abstract search engine of peer-reviewed literature. It is devised to aid researchers in not only accessing scientific information but screening literature for analysis [ 46 ], and it has been employed in numerous published bibliometric analyses [ 25 , 47 , 48 ]. In Scopus, citation analysis is faster and includes more publications than that of Web of Science [ 49 ]. In a recently performed study for evaluating the accuracy of citation information in Web of Science and Scopus databases, the authors stated that the former database includes 16.7% incorrect references, also called phantom references, 26.7% error in references (i.e., incorrect volume number or publication year), and 55% missing references [ 44 ]. Overall, the author thought Scopus to be the better tool for this study as compared to the similar study by Feijoo et al. [ 9 ] that employed Web of Science as the benchmark database.

In many bibliometric studies, it was reported that relevant studies were distributed among journals following Bradford’s law [ 49 , 50 , 51 ]. According to this bibliometric law, a few prolific journals account for a considerable percentage of all publications in a given discipline [ 52 ]. The studies published in these core journals are more probable to be referred to most commonly by successive articles [ 53 ]. Interestingly, in this study, the journal distribution pattern of the most-cited publications does not completely fit this law, as the list also features journals such as the Acta Odontologica Scandinavica and the Journal of Dental Research , which are not considered as the specialized journals in the field of periodontics and adhesive restorations respectively but published few of top-cited articles. Hence, the application of this law for conducting bibliometric analysis in some disciplines may cause inaccurate inferences. In this study, a statistically significant association was found between the number of the most-cited articles published in a journal and the impact factor of that journal. This finding is in accordance with the findings of some bibliometric studies [ 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 ], but contrary to those of several others [ 54 , 56 ].

As with several “most-cited” publications in dentistry [ 8 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 ], this study reported that most of the most-cited articles in dentistry originated from the United States. This significant contribution can be attributed to a larger scientific population, active researchers, and ample financial resources [ 10 , 17 , 59 , 60 , 61 ]. Additionally, to unparalleled research work, an increased tendency among authors to cite articles originating from the US has been observed [ 17 , 62 ]. It is noteworthy that approximately 47% of the most cited dentistry articles, including the 1st and 2nd, ranked articles in this study, originated from European institutions, despite their small population size. Importantly, a lack of multicenter studies was noticeable, reflecting a need to escalate international collaboration.

Overall, after the US, European countries, including Sweden, Belgium, Switzerland, UK, and Denmark, have been prominent in this list of contributing authors. Additionally, to this study, several other bibliometric analyses have reported that authors from Asia, Africa, and the Middle East, whether being the first or the corresponding author made a negligible contribution to what could be considered a top-cited article [ 17 , 60 , 63 , 64 ]. Potential reasons might include language barriers, gaps in conducting research, and professional networking, as well as limited information access [ 65 ]. International organizations such as the World Health Organization [WHO] and the United Nations [UN] could play a vital role in bolstering these health care developments.

The particular subject area of the highly cited papers fluctuates from one decade to another. Overall, in the present study, there was a domination of articles related to periodontology, specifically on the topic of microbiology, although other disciplines of dentistry, including adhesive restorations and implantology, have been progressively incorporated. A considerable portion of our analysis comprised of narrative reviews (36%). It might be argued that this category of publication does not follow the concept of reproducible science [ 66 ] as a systematic review does [ 67 ]. Interestingly, the findings of this study are in opposition to this concept of being a narrative review or systematic review. When compared to the baseline references, randomized controlled trials, a narrative review appeared to secure higher citations than a systematic review. One possible explanation might be that narrative reviews aim to explain the mechanisms of diseases or hypothesis generation; hence, a systematic method to synthesize the evidence in these cases may be irrelevant. Furthermore, as these narrative reviews are authored by the experts in the respective specialty and supported by reputed institutions, readers tend to believe that these articles are not overly sensitive to bias. Nevertheless, in opposition to the previous concerns about the non-reproducibility of narrative reviews, future research is therefore required to explain the extent to which scientific advancement is encouraged through systematic (in comparison with narrative) reviews. Interestingly, the dental journal with the current highest impact factor, Periodontology 2000 , is focused on publishing narrative reviews. After narrative reviews, clinical trials are the most frequently cited study design (24%). This finding is in agreement with the results of several other bibliometric studies conducted in other medical fields including orthopedic surgery [ 68 ], anesthesia [ 59 ], and general surgery [ 60 ].

A distinctive characteristic of this analysis was that it included 10 evidence level-1 studies, including systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and randomized controlled trials. These findings do not coincide with the findings of several other bibliometric analyses performed on various specialties within dentistry and medicine [ 16 , 25 , 68 , 69 , 70 ]. Recently, these high evidence level studies have been performed and are securing high citations, despite only being published in recent years [ 71 ]. Such reports are useful for facilitating decision-making, directing practice, and advancing research, so a high number of such studies in the current study is not surprising and provides further proof of the maturation of the discipline [ 72 ].

This bibliometric analysis has several limitations. First, for a given research field, many factors may influence the citation count, including the age of the publication, journal of publication, the reputation of author, institution, and country of origin as well as the original language. Second, the analysis of self-citations and citations in textbooks and lectures was not performed. Moreover, the fact that some authors may be inclined to cite articles from a particular journal in which they intend to publish an article [ 73 ]. Third, the analysis of the contributing countries was based on the address of the corresponding author. A statistical bias may occur once the address of the corresponding author is changed [ 74 ]. Furthermore, for corresponding authors working in multiple institutions, we only considered the first institution.

4. Materials and Methods

4.1. search strategy.

A total of 91 journals included in the category “Dentistry, Oral Surgery, and Medicine” in the database of the 2019 edition of the Journal Citation Report: Science Edition, a section of the Clarivate Analytics ( https://www.jcr.clarivate.com ) (accessed on 1 January 2021) were selected. An electronic literature search on Scopus ( https://www.scopus.com ) (accessed on 1 January 2021) database was performed on 1 January 2021. The journals American Journal of Orthodontics , now called the American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics , the International Journal of Oral Surgery , now called as the International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery , and Critical Reviews in Oral Biology and Medicine , now affiliated with the Journal of Dental Research , were also reviewed.

As the search strategy for each journal, the journal’s title was written in the source title’ section without any restriction of language, publication year, and study design of the article. Using the ‘documents’ tool of Scopus, the citation counts of all the articles published in all dentistry journals were identified.

4.2. Article Selection

According to the selected database, 336,381 articles were retrieved, out of which, the top 100 most-cited publications were further selected for this bibliometric analysis. The top 100 most-cited articles were selected and ranked based on their citation count. After ranking these articles, their cross-matching was performed with the citation data from Google Scholar to evaluate any fluctuation in citation counts.

4.3. Data Extraction and Bibliometric Variables

A total of 100 articles were included in this study, and their complete text was downloaded. The following bibliometric variables were extracted: publication title, citation count, current citation count (i.e., the total number of citation count collected by an article in 2020) [ 75 ], citation density (i.e., the total number of citation count/age of publication) [ 75 ], publication year, authorship, country of origin, study design, the field of interest, evidence level, and journal of publication.

Based on the study design, the articles were categorized as animal study, classification or tool for assessing the results, case-control study, cohort study, consensus report, in vitro study, letter to the editor, narrative review/expert opinion, new material or technique, randomized controlled trial, and systematic review/meta-analysis. Based on the field of interest, the articles were classified as adhesive restorations/dental materials, bone morphology/histology, behavior management, dental caries, endodontics, implantology, oral biology/morphology, oral pathology/medicine, oral radiology, orthodontics, oral hygiene, periodontology, pediatric dentistry, pain dysfunction/orofacial pain syndrome, regenerative dentistry, and saliva/biochemistry.

4.4. Data and Statistical Analysis

The Visualization of Similarities (VOSviewer) software (Centre for Science and Technology Studies, Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands) [ 76 ] was employed to visually analyze the registers separately, drawing a network of links among prominent authors, contributing countries, publishing journals, and author keywords to identify the strongest link of the net. The reason for selecting this software to draw and represent large networks from bibliometric information among other software, including Pajek or Gephi, is the remarkable display quality, the choice of demonstrating the density of links, and the probability of creating overlay maps adding data batches. Moreover, this software has been employed in several bibliometric analyses [ 75 , 77 , 78 , 79 , 80 ]. The characteristics are relevant for performing our bibliometric analysis.

Descriptive and bivariate analyses were performed using a statistical software package, i.e., IBM SPSS Statistics version 24.0 (IBM, Chicago, IL, USA). To assess the normality of the data, the Shapiro-Wilk test was conducted. Mean (standard deviation) or median (interquartile range) were calculated based on normality and distribution of data. To evaluate the median differences between the independent groups, the Kruskal–Wallis test was performed. Post hoc testing was performed to assess the median differences within each group. Any decrease or increase in the time-dependent trends was analyzed by performing the Mann–Kendall trend test. The Spearman-rank test was performed to assess the correlation between the publication count of the journal and the age of the journal. A value of p < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

5. Conclusions

An appropriate selection of search engine and search strategy are extremely important to conduct a thorough bibliometric analysis. In this study, changing the search database resulted in several prominent differences when compared with the outcomes of a similar analysis published by Feijoo et al. [ 9 ] in 2014. The current study reported that narrative reviews/expert opinions related to periodontology having evidence level V were the most-cited articles in dentistry.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge the University of Western Australia and the College of Dentistry, King Faisal University for their ongoing support.

Supplementary Materials

The following are available online at https://www.mdpi.com/2227-9032/9/3/356/s1 , Table S1: The list of the top 100 most-cited articles published in the dentistry.

Author Contributions

F.Y.A.; Conceptualization; Data curation; Formal analysis; Investigation; Methodology; Writing—original draft. E.K.; Conceptualization; Resources; Software; Supervision; Validation; Writing—review and editing. M.T.; Formal analysis; Methodology; Resources; Supervision; Writing—review and editing. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

The authors would like to acknowledge the financial support provided to Faris Asiri by the Deanship of Scientific Research at King Faisal University, under Nasher’s Track 206003.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Conflicts of interest.

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Our Mission

An illustration of a figure examining data

The 10 Most Significant Education Studies of 2020

We reviewed hundreds of educational studies in 2020 and then highlighted 10 of the most significant—covering topics from virtual learning to the reading wars and the decline of standardized tests.

In the month of March of 2020, the year suddenly became a whirlwind. With a pandemic disrupting life across the entire globe, teachers scrambled to transform their physical classrooms into virtual—or even hybrid—ones, and researchers slowly began to collect insights into what works, and what doesn’t, in online learning environments around the world.

Meanwhile, neuroscientists made a convincing case for keeping handwriting in schools, and after the closure of several coal-fired power plants in Chicago, researchers reported a drop in pediatric emergency room visits and fewer absences in schools, reminding us that questions of educational equity do not begin and end at the schoolhouse door.

1. To Teach Vocabulary, Let Kids Be Thespians

When students are learning a new language, ask them to act out vocabulary words. It’s fun to unleash a child’s inner thespian, of course, but a 2020 study concluded that it also nearly doubles their ability to remember the words months later.

Researchers asked 8-year-old students to listen to words in another language and then use their hands and bodies to mimic the words—spreading their arms and pretending to fly, for example, when learning the German word flugzeug , which means “airplane.” After two months, these young actors were a remarkable 73 percent more likely to remember the new words than students who had listened without accompanying gestures. Researchers discovered similar, if slightly less dramatic, results when students looked at pictures while listening to the corresponding vocabulary.

It’s a simple reminder that if you want students to remember something, encourage them to learn it in a variety of ways—by drawing it , acting it out, or pairing it with relevant images , for example.

2. Neuroscientists Defend the Value of Teaching Handwriting—Again

For most kids, typing just doesn’t cut it. In 2012, brain scans of preliterate children revealed crucial reading circuitry flickering to life when kids hand-printed letters and then tried to read them. The effect largely disappeared when the letters were typed or traced.

More recently, in 2020, a team of researchers studied older children—seventh graders—while they handwrote, drew, and typed words, and concluded that handwriting and drawing produced telltale neural tracings indicative of deeper learning.

“Whenever self-generated movements are included as a learning strategy, more of the brain gets stimulated,” the researchers explain, before echoing the 2012 study: “It also appears that the movements related to keyboard typing do not activate these networks the same way that drawing and handwriting do.”

It would be a mistake to replace typing with handwriting, though. All kids need to develop digital skills, and there’s evidence that technology helps children with dyslexia to overcome obstacles like note taking or illegible handwriting, ultimately freeing them to “use their time for all the things in which they are gifted,” says the Yale Center for Dyslexia and Creativity.

3. The ACT Test Just Got a Negative Score (Face Palm)

A 2020 study found that ACT test scores, which are often a key factor in college admissions, showed a weak—or even negative —relationship when it came to predicting how successful students would be in college. “There is little evidence that students will have more college success if they work to improve their ACT score,” the researchers explain, and students with very high ACT scores—but indifferent high school grades—often flamed out in college, overmatched by the rigors of a university’s academic schedule.

Just last year, the SAT—cousin to the ACT—had a similarly dubious public showing. In a major 2019 study of nearly 50,000 students led by researcher Brian Galla, and including Angela Duckworth, researchers found that high school grades were stronger predictors of four-year-college graduation than SAT scores.

The reason? Four-year high school grades, the researchers asserted, are a better indicator of crucial skills like perseverance, time management, and the ability to avoid distractions. It’s most likely those skills, in the end, that keep kids in college.

4. A Rubric Reduces Racial Grading Bias

A simple step might help undercut the pernicious effect of grading bias, a new study found: Articulate your standards clearly before you begin grading, and refer to the standards regularly during the assessment process.

In 2020, more than 1,500 teachers were recruited and asked to grade a writing sample from a fictional second-grade student. All of the sample stories were identical—but in one set, the student mentions a family member named Dashawn, while the other set references a sibling named Connor.

Teachers were 13 percent more likely to give the Connor papers a passing grade, revealing the invisible advantages that many students unknowingly benefit from. When grading criteria are vague, implicit stereotypes can insidiously “fill in the blanks,” explains the study’s author. But when teachers have an explicit set of criteria to evaluate the writing—asking whether the student “provides a well-elaborated recount of an event,” for example—the difference in grades is nearly eliminated.

5. What Do Coal-Fired Power Plants Have to Do With Learning? Plenty

When three coal-fired plants closed in the Chicago area, student absences in nearby schools dropped by 7 percent, a change largely driven by fewer emergency room visits for asthma-related problems. The stunning finding, published in a 2020 study from Duke and Penn State, underscores the role that often-overlooked environmental factors—like air quality, neighborhood crime, and noise pollution—have in keeping our children healthy and ready to learn.

At scale, the opportunity cost is staggering: About 2.3 million children in the United States still attend a public elementary or middle school located within 10 kilometers of a coal-fired plant.

The study builds on a growing body of research that reminds us that questions of educational equity do not begin and end at the schoolhouse door. What we call an achievement gap is often an equity gap, one that “takes root in the earliest years of children’s lives,” according to a 2017 study . We won’t have equal opportunity in our schools, the researchers admonish, until we are diligent about confronting inequality in our cities, our neighborhoods—and ultimately our own backyards.

6. Students Who Generate Good Questions Are Better Learners

Some of the most popular study strategies—highlighting passages, rereading notes, and underlining key sentences—are also among the least effective. A 2020 study highlighted a powerful alternative: Get students to generate questions about their learning, and gradually press them to ask more probing questions.

In the study, students who studied a topic and then generated their own questions scored an average of 14 percentage points higher on a test than students who used passive strategies like studying their notes and rereading classroom material. Creating questions, the researchers found, not only encouraged students to think more deeply about the topic but also strengthened their ability to remember what they were studying.

There are many engaging ways to have students create highly productive questions : When creating a test, you can ask students to submit their own questions, or you can use the Jeopardy! game as a platform for student-created questions.

7. Did a 2020 Study Just End the ‘Reading Wars’?

One of the most widely used reading programs was dealt a severe blow when a panel of reading experts concluded that it “would be unlikely to lead to literacy success for all of America’s public schoolchildren.”

In the 2020 study , the experts found that the controversial program—called “Units of Study” and developed over the course of four decades by Lucy Calkins at the Teachers College Reading and Writing Project—failed to explicitly and systematically teach young readers how to decode and encode written words, and was thus “in direct opposition to an enormous body of settled research.”

The study sounded the death knell for practices that de-emphasize phonics in favor of having children use multiple sources of information—like story events or illustrations—to predict the meaning of unfamiliar words, an approach often associated with “balanced literacy.” In an internal memo obtained by publisher APM, Calkins seemed to concede the point, writing that “aspects of balanced literacy need some ‘rebalancing.’”

8. A Secret to High-Performing Virtual Classrooms

In 2020, a team at Georgia State University compiled a report on virtual learning best practices. While evidence in the field is "sparse" and "inconsistent," the report noted that logistical issues like accessing materials—and not content-specific problems like failures of comprehension—were often among the most significant obstacles to online learning. It wasn’t that students didn’t understand photosynthesis in a virtual setting, in other words—it was that they didn’t find (or simply didn't access) the lesson on photosynthesis at all.

That basic insight echoed a 2019 study that highlighted the crucial need to organize virtual classrooms even more intentionally than physical ones. Remote teachers should use a single, dedicated hub for important documents like assignments; simplify communications and reminders by using one channel like email or text; and reduce visual clutter like hard-to-read fonts and unnecessary decorations throughout their virtual spaces.

Because the tools are new to everyone, regular feedback on topics like accessibility and ease of use is crucial. Teachers should post simple surveys asking questions like “Have you encountered any technical issues?” and “Can you easily locate your assignments?” to ensure that students experience a smooth-running virtual learning space.

9. Love to Learn Languages? Surprisingly, Coding May Be Right for You

Learning how to code more closely resembles learning a language such as Chinese or Spanish than learning math, a 2020 study found—upending the conventional wisdom about what makes a good programmer.

In the study, young adults with no programming experience were asked to learn Python, a popular programming language; they then took a series of tests assessing their problem-solving, math, and language skills. The researchers discovered that mathematical skill accounted for only 2 percent of a person’s ability to learn how to code, while language skills were almost nine times more predictive, accounting for 17 percent of learning ability.

That’s an important insight because all too often, programming classes require that students pass advanced math courses—a hurdle that needlessly excludes students with untapped promise, the researchers claim.

10. Researchers Cast Doubt on Reading Tasks Like ‘Finding the Main Idea’

“Content is comprehension,” declared a 2020 Fordham Institute study , sounding a note of defiance as it staked out a position in the ongoing debate over the teaching of intrinsic reading skills versus the teaching of content knowledge.

While elementary students spend an enormous amount of time working on skills like “finding the main idea” and “summarizing”—tasks born of the belief that reading is a discrete and trainable ability that transfers seamlessly across content areas—these young readers aren’t experiencing “the additional reading gains that well-intentioned educators hoped for,” the study concluded.

So what works? The researchers looked at data from more than 18,000 K–5 students, focusing on the time spent in subject areas like math, social studies, and ELA, and found that “social studies is the only subject with a clear, positive, and statistically significant effect on reading improvement.” In effect, exposing kids to rich content in civics, history, and law appeared to teach reading more effectively than our current methods of teaching reading. Perhaps defiance is no longer needed: Fordham’s conclusions are rapidly becoming conventional wisdom—and they extend beyond the limited claim of reading social studies texts. According to Natalie Wexler, the author of the well-received 2019 book The Knowledge Gap , content knowledge and reading are intertwined. “Students with more [background] knowledge have a better chance of understanding whatever text they encounter. They’re able to retrieve more information about the topic from long-term memory, leaving more space in working memory for comprehension,” she recently told Edutopia .

About Paper360
Paper360 Archive
Tissue360 Archive
TAPPI/PIMA Career Center
Submit Editorial

TJ Honors TWO Best Research Papers for 2020

For the first time since the award’s inception in 2006, two papers have been selected as TAPPI Journal Best Research Paper for 2020. “The six papers that were nominated this year covered a wide range of the entire pulp, paper, and supplier industries, making the selection extremely challenging,” said Peter W. Hart, Ph.D., TAPPI Journal editor-in-chief. “On behalf of the TJ Editorial Board, I’d like to congratulate both winners and the other nominated papers. They did wonderful work last year.”

Each year, the TJ Editorial Board honors the best of the journal’s content by nominating and voting for the TAPPI Journal Best Research Paper, which is ultimately selected based on scientific merit, innovation, creativity, and clarity. The board is currently comprised of 18 experts from academia and industry.

“It was great to see a paper in the running from North America on paper physics, because it’s exciting that this important area of research is making a resurgence in the region,” said Hart.

In addition to receiving Best Research Paper honors, Panek will also be awarded the Honghi Tran TAPPI Journal Best Research Paper Prize. The US$2,000 cash prize is endowed by Professor Emeritus Honghi Tran, Ph.D., of the University of Toronto and author or co-author of more than 80 papers published in TJ.

Tran’s body of work also includes co-authoring the second winning paper for 2020, “Modeling of the energy of a smelt-water explosion in the recovery boiler dissolving tank,” which appeared in the August, 2020 issue.

The recovery boiler winning paper’s first author was Eric Jin, a former student of Tran’s who is now a performance engineering specialist with The Babcock & Wilcox Company. In addition to Tran, the paper’s co-authors included Malcom Mackenzie and Steve Osborne, who are technology manager and advisory engineer, respectively, for The Babcock & Wilcox Company.

“Under the tutelage of Tran, teams continue to add high-quality content in the liquor cycle, kiln, and recausticizing arenas,” said Hart. “This makes the TJ Editorial Board’s selection even more difficult.”

Tran established the prize in 2019 to encourage and reward the publication of high-quality research in TJ. Since his former student, Jin, was co-winner of the 2020 Best Research Paper Award, the prize was awarded to Panek as first author of the other paper.

“The TJ Editorial Board would like to thank Dr. Tran for establishing the TAPPI Journal Best Research Paper Prize,” said Hart. “Our hope is that it infuses other groups with a healthy dose of competitive spirit, resulting in additional high-quality research papers from across the industry and world to be considered in future Best Paper decisions.”

Highly Downloaded Economics Articles 2020

Which topics in the Economics collection generated the most attention from readers in 2020?

The following list represents highly downloaded articles from the 3 Annual Reviews Economics titles during the year.

Return to Most Read Articles in 2020 Collection

Environmental, Economic, and Social Consequences of the Oil Palm Boom

Matin Qaim , Kibrom T. Sibhatu , Hermanto Siregar , and Ingo Grass , Annual Review of Resource Economics

Behavioral Implications of Causal Misperceptions

Ran Spiegler , Annual Review of Economics

Political Effects of the Internet and Social Media

Ekaterina Zhuravskaya , Maria Petrova , and Ruben Enikolopov , Annual Review of Economics

On Measuring Global Poverty

Martin Ravallion , Annual Review of Economics

Social Identity and Economic Policy

Moses Shayo , Annual Review of Economics

The Theory and Empirics of the Marriage Market

Pierre-André Chiappori , Annual Review of Economics

A Conversation with Angus Deaton

Angus Deaton , Gordon Rausser , and David Zilberman , Annual Review of Resource Economics

Social Identity, Group Behavior, and Teams

Gary Charness and Yan Chen , Annual Review of Economics

Informality: Causes and Consequences for Development

Gabriel Ulyssea , Annual Review of Economics

Peer Effects in Networks: A Survey

Yann Bramoullé , Habiba Djebbari , and Bernard Fortin , Annual Review of Economics

Annual Reviews is a nonprofit publisher with a mission to synthesize and integrate knowledge for the progress of science and the benefit of society. We currently publish 51 highly cited journals in the Biomedical, Life, Physical, and Social Sciences, including Economics.

Browse our journals | Sign up for email alerts | Find us on Facebook | Follow us on Twitter

Subscribe to the AR e-newsletter for free content every month

Already a customer? Log In

Create an Account
Buyers Guide
About TAPPI
Press Releases & Statements
TAPPI Journal Awards Two Best Research Papers for 2020

Each year, the TAPPI Journal (TJ) Editorial Board honors the best of TJ content by nominating and voting for the TAPPI Journal Best Research Paper, which is ultimately selected based on scientific merit, innovation, creativity, and clarity. For the first time since the award was established in 2006, the Board, which is currently comprised of 18 experts from academia and industry, selected two winning papers for 2020.

“The six papers that were nominated this year covered a wide range of the entire pulp, paper and supplier industries, making selection extremely challenging,” said Peter W. Hart, Ph.D., TJ editor-in-chief. “On behalf of the TJ Editorial Board, I’d like to congratulate both winners and the other nominated papers. They did wonderful work last year.”

One of the winning papers, “Creasing severity and reverse-side cracking,” was co-authored by Joel C. Panek, research scientist, WestRock; Swan D. Smith, R&D researcher, WestRock; and Douglas W. Coffin, professor, Miami University. The paper physics research appeared in the April 2020 issue. “It was great to see a paper in the running from North America on paper physics, because it’s exciting that this important area of research is making a resurgence in the region,” said Hart. In addition to receiving Best Research Paper honors, Panek will also be awarded the Honghi Tran TAPPI Journal Best Research Paper Prize. The $2,000 cash prize is endowed by Professor Emeritus Honghi Tran, Ph.D., of the University of Toronto and author or co-author of more than 80 papers published in TJ . His body of work also includes co-authoring the second winning paper for 2020, “Modeling of the energy of a smelt-water explosion in the recovery boiler dissolving tank,” which appeared in the August 2020 issue.

Tran established the Prize in 2019 to encourage and reward the publication of high-quality research in TJ . Since his former student, Jin, was co-winner of the 2020 Best Research Paper Award, the Prize was awarded to Panek as first author of the other paper.

“The TJ Editorial Board would like to thank Dr. Tran for establishing TAPPI Journal Best Research Paper Prize,” said Hart. “Our hope is that it infuses other groups with a healthy dose of competitive spirit, resulting in additional high-quality research papers from across the industry and world to be considered in future best paper decisions.”

The awards will be presented at TAPPICon LIVE! , October 3-6, 2021 in Atlanta, Ga., USA.

About TAPPI: TAPPI is the leading association for the worldwide pulp, paper, packaging, tissue and converting industries and publisher of Paper360°, Tissue360° and TAPPI Journal. Through information exchange, events, trusted content and networking opportunities, TAPPI helps members elevate their performance by providing solutions that lead to better, faster and more cost-effective ways of doing business. It has provided management training and networking to the industry’s leaders for more than 100 years. For more information, visit TAPPI’s website .

Inside this Section

Early Bird Registration Deadline Extended to July 20 for TAPPI’s Extrusion Coating Course
TAPPI/AICC Announce Cris Carter to Keynote at SuperCorrExpo® 2024
New TAPPI Board of Directors and Officers Announced
TAPPI Announces 2020 Engineering Division Technical Award and Beloit Prize Winner
TAPPI Academy Announces Addition of Web and Winding Courses to eLearning Offerings
TAPPI Announces Cash Prize to Accompany TAPPI Journal Best Research Paper Award
Master Papermaking Additives to Gain Competitive Advantage and Better Meet Customers’ Needs
Film Extrusion Manual, Third Edition Now Available from TAPPI Press
TAPPI Selects Fellows and Outstanding Young Professionals for 2020
TAPPI Awards Highest Honors for 2020
Guidelines for Safe Assessment and Operation of Yankee Dryers Now Available from TAPPI Press
Kraft Recovery Boilers, Third Edition Now Available From TAPPI Press
Black Liquor Evaporation Now Available from TAPPI Press
Lime Kilns and Recausticizing: The Forgotten Part of a Kraft Mill Now Available from TAPPI Press
TAPPI Foundation Awards 2021-2022 Scholarships
Two Major Training Events for the Pulp and Paper Industry Set for January 10 – 13, 2022 in St. Petersburg, Florida
Interactive Panel Provides Perspectives on 2025 Sustainability Initiatives In the Flexible Packaging Industry
Introducing TAPPI’s Newest Directors
WestRock’s Director-Research and Innovation Named Recipient of TAPPI’s 2022 Gunnar Nicholson Gold Medal Award
John Neun Named Recipient of 2022 Herman L. Joachim Distinguished Service Award
Paul W. Magnabosco Outstanding Local Section Award
TAPPI Selects Fellows and Outstanding Young Professionals for 2022
TAPPI Journal Awards Best Research Paper for 2021
Chairman and CEO of Green Bay Packaging Inc. Receives TAPPI/PIMA 2022 Executive of the Year Award
MICA TO SPONSOR AND PRESENT AT TAPPI'S EXTRUSION COATING COURSE
New Handbook Assists Paper Mills to Achieve Efficient Operation through Utilization of Process Chemicals
Innovation to Take Center Stage at Biennial European PLACE Conference
TAPPI European PLACE Conference Offers Valuable Educational and Networking Opportunities
Education and Networking to Take Center Stage at Fiberglass Mat Event
Chemical Recovery in the Alkaline Pulping Processes, Fourth Edition Now Available from TAPPI Press
TAPPI Journal Announces New Editorial Board Members
TAPPI Announces New Directors and Officers of the Board
North Carolina State University’s Professor and Buckman Distinguished Scientist Named Recipient of TAPPI’s 2023 Gunnar Nicholson Gold Medal Award
Brian N. Brogdon Honored with TAPPI’s 2023 Herman L. Joachim Distinguished Service Award
TAPPI Selects Fellows and Outstanding Young Professionals for 2023
TAPPI Journal Awards Best Research Papers for 2022
President and CEO of Stora Enso Receives TAPPI/PIMA 2023 Executive of the Year Award
Announcing TAPPI’s CorrExpo 2023 Keynoters: Bob Chapman, Chairman and CEO, Barry-Wehmiller and World-Class Drummer Mark Schulman
TAPPI’s Women in Industry Division Names Sappi North America’s Vice President of Research, Development and Sustainability and North Carolina State University’s Assistant Dean for Advancement in the College of Natural Resources Recipients of the 2023 Woman
Announcing TAPPI’s CorrExpo 2023 Box Plant Deal
Call for Speakers Issued for TAPPI’s 2024 FlexPack PLACE Conference
TAPPI Announces 2023 Award Winners For the Corrugated Packaging Division
TAPPI Announces CorrExpo 2023 What’s New/Tech Talks Presentations
Abstracts Sought for TAPPI’s FlexPack PLACE Conference
Fiberglass Mat Community to Meet October 17-19, 2023 in Chattanooga, TN
Call for Presentations Extended for TAPPI’s FlexPack PLACE Conference
TAPPI Foundation Names 2023-2024 Scholarship Winners
Corrugated Boot Camp Hosted by Chicago TAPPI Following Annual Board Meeting
Keynote Speakers Announced for TAPPI’s 2024 FlexPack PLACE Conference
TAPPI/AICC Announce Jake Hall and Greg Gumbel to Keynote at SuperCorrExpo
Interactive Panel Explores Flexible Packaging’s Challenges and Limitations in Creating More Sustainable Solutions at TAPPI’s FlexPack PLACE Conference
Early-bird Registration Opens for the 2024 TAPPI International Conference on Nanotechnology for Renewable Materials
TAPPI Journal Awards Best Research Paper for 2023 and Announces Editorial Board Changes for 2024
TAPPI Announces Newly Elected Directors from Irving Consumer Products, Valmet and Auburn University
What’s In Your Flexible Packaging?
Seyhan Nuyan, Ph.D., Named Recipient of TAPPI’s 2024 Gunnar Nicholson Gold Medal Award
Paula Hajakian Honored with TAPPI’s 2024 Herman L. Joachim Distinguished Service Award
Converter Advanced Registration Discount (CARD) Program Provides Affordable, One Price Registration
TAPPI Selects Fellows and Outstanding Young Professionals for 2024
CEO of ND Paper Receives TAPPI/PIMA 2024 Executive of the Year Award
Sean Ireland, CEO of CapaTec, to Deliver Keynote Address at 2024Nano
Sean Ireland, CEO of CapaTec, to Deliver Keynote Address at TAPPI's 2024 International Conference on Nanotechnology for Renewable Materials (Nano)
TAPPI & AICC Announce Attendee Registration Opening for SuperCorrExpo® 2024
TAPPI & AICC Now Accepting Entries for Box Manufacturing Olympics
Fiberglass Mat Community to Meet October 1-3, 2024 in Denver, CO
2018 Archives
2017 Archives
2016 Archives
2015 Archives
2014 Archives
2013 Archives
2012 Archives
April 2019 Committee of the Month - Runnability Planning Committee
Mentor Match Signup - Spring 2019
A Guide to the Nanotechnology used in the Average Home
65 North American Companies Remove Go Paperless - Go Green Claims
5,000 journals articles and conference papers now available to search
2017 starts with sales soaring for paper diaries, notebooks and planners
20 never seen before packaging designs
Better Together Podcast
My TAPPI Story: Greg Jones
My TAPPI Story: Gabriele Pinckney
My TAPPI Story: Jimmy Jong
My TAPPI Story: Eupidio Scopel
My TAPPI Story: David Maddux
My TAPPI Story: Mike Farrell
Valmet Visit
GranBio’s path to the Future
Graphic Packaging International - July 8, 2024
Podcast Interview with Larry: The Evolution of TAPPI
Everything Corrugated Under Sun
About Tappi
Privacy Policy
Antitrust Policy
Conduct codes
Social Media
Link Policy

Get the Reddit app

Beginners -> /r/mlquestions , AGI -> /r/singularity, career advices -> /r/cscareerquestions, datasets -> r/datasets

[Research] The best AI papers of 2020 with a clear video demo, short read, paper, and code for each of them.

The best AI papers of 2020 with a clear video demo, short read, paper, and code for each of them.

In-depth Medium article : https://medium.com/towards-artificial-intelligence/2020-a-year-full-of-amazing-ai-papers-a-review-c42fa07aff4b

The full list on GitHub : https://github.com/louisfb01/Best_AI_paper_2020

By continuing, you agree to our User Agreement and acknowledge that you understand the Privacy Policy .

Enter the 6-digit code from your authenticator app

You’ve set up two-factor authentication for this account.

Enter a 6-digit backup code

Create your username and password.

Reddit is anonymous, so your username is what you’ll go by here. Choose wisely—because once you get a name, you can’t change it.

Reset your password

Enter your email address or username and we’ll send you a link to reset your password

Check your inbox

An email with a link to reset your password was sent to the email address associated with your account

Choose a Reddit account to continue

Review Paper Format: How To Write A Review Article Fast

This guide aims to demystify the review paper format, presenting practical tips to help you accelerate the writing process.

From understanding the structure to synthesising literature effectively, we’ll explore how to create a compelling review article swiftly, ensuring your work is both impactful and timely.

Whether you’re a seasoned researcher or a budding scholar, these info on review paper format and style will streamline your writing journey.

Research Paper, Review Paper Format

Parts	Notes
Title & Abstract	Sets the stage with a concise title and a descriptive abstract summarising the review’s scope and findings.
Introduction	Lays the groundwork by presenting the research question, justifying the review’s importance, and highlighting knowledge gaps.
Methodology	Details the research methods used to select, assess, and synthesise studies, showcasing the review’s rigor and integrity.
Body	The core section where literature is summarised, analysed, and critiqued, synthesising evidence and presenting arguments with well-structured paragraphs.
Discussion & Conclusion	Weaves together main points, reflects on the findings’ implications for the field, and suggests future research directions.
Citation	Acknowledges the scholarly community’s contributions, linking to cited research and enriching the review’s academic discourse.

What Is A Review Paper?

Diving into the realm of scholarly communication, you might have stumbled upon a research review article.

This unique genre serves to synthesise existing data, offering a panoramic view of the current state of knowledge on a particular topic.

Unlike a standard research article that presents original experiments, a review paper delves into published literature, aiming to:

clarify, and
evaluate previous findings.

Imagine you’re tasked to write a review article. The starting point is often a burning research question. Your mission? To scour various journals, piecing together a well-structured narrative that not only summarises key findings but also identifies gaps in existing literature.

This is where the magic of review writing shines – it’s about creating a roadmap for future research, highlighting areas ripe for exploration.

Review articles come in different flavours, with systematic reviews and meta-analyses being the gold standards. The methodology here is meticulous, with a clear protocol for selecting and evaluating studies.

This rigorous approach ensures that your review is more than just an overview; it’s a critical analysis that adds depth to the understanding of the subject.

Crafting a good review requires mastering the art of citation. Every claim or observation you make needs to be backed by relevant literature. This not only lends credibility to your work but also provides a treasure trove of information for readers eager to delve deeper.

Types Of Review Paper

Not all review articles are created equal. Each type has its methodology, purpose, and format, catering to different research needs and questions. Here’s a couple of types of review paper for you to look at:

Systematic Review Paper

First up is the systematic review, the crème de la crème of review types. It’s known for its rigorous methodology, involving a detailed plan for:

identifying,
selecting, and
critically appraising relevant research.

The aim? To answer a specific research question. Systematic reviews often include meta-analyses , where data from multiple studies are statistically combined to provide more robust conclusions.

This review type is a cornerstone in evidence-based fields like healthcare.

Literature Review Paper

Then there’s the literature review, a broader type you might encounter.

Here, the goal is to give an overview of the main points and debates on a topic, without the stringent methodological framework of a systematic review.

Literature reviews are great for getting a grasp of the field and identifying where future research might head. Often reading literature review papers can help you to learn about a topic rather quickly.

Narrative Reviews

Narrative reviews allow for a more flexible approach. Authors of narrative reviews draw on existing literature to provide insights or critique a certain area of research.

This is generally done with a less formal structure than systematic reviews. This type is particularly useful for areas where it’s difficult to quantify findings across studies.

Scoping Reviews

Scoping reviews are gaining traction for their ability to map out the existing literature on a broad topic, identifying:

key concepts,
theories, and

Unlike systematic reviews, scoping reviews have a more exploratory approach, which can be particularly useful in emerging fields or for topics that haven’t been comprehensively reviewed before.

Each type of review serves a unique purpose and requires a specific skill set. Whether you’re looking to summarise existing findings, synthesise data for evidence-based practice, or explore new research territories, there’s a review type that fits the bill.

Knowing how to write, read, and interpret these reviews can significantly enhance your understanding of any research area.

What Are The Parts In A Review Paper

A review paper format has a pretty set structure, with minor changes here and there to suit the topic covered. The review paper format not only organises your thoughts but also guides your readers through the complexities of your topic.

Title & Abstract

Starting with the title and abstract, you set the stage. The title should be a concise indicator of the content, making it easier for others to quickly tell what your article content is about.

As for the abstract, it should act as a descriptive summary, offering a snapshot of your review’s scope and findings.

Introduction

The introduction lays the groundwork, presenting the research question that drives your review. It’s here you:

justify the importance of your review,
delineating the current state of knowledge and
highlighting gaps.

This section aims to articulate the significance of the topic and your objective in exploring it.

Methodology

The methodology section is the backbone of systematic reviews and meta-analyses, detailing the research methods employed to select, assess, and synthesise studies.

This transparency allows readers to gauge the rigour and reproducibility of your review. It’s a testament to the integrity of your work, showing how you’ve minimised bias.

The heart of your review lies in the body, where you:

analyse, and
critique existing literature .

This is where you synthesise evidence, draw connections, and present both sides of any argument. Well-structured paragraphs and clear subheadings guide readers through your analysis, offering insights and fostering a deeper understanding of the subject.

Discussion & Conclusion

The discussion or conclusion section is where you weave together the main points, reflecting on what your findings mean for the field.

It’s about connecting the dots, offering a synthesis of evidence that answers your initial research question. This part often hints at future research directions, suggesting areas that need further exploration due to gaps in existing knowledge.

Review paper format usually includes the citation list – it is your nod to the scholarly community, acknowledging the contributions of others.

Each citation is a thread in the larger tapestry of academic discourse, enabling readers to delve deeper into the research that has shaped your review.

Tips To Write An Review Article Fast

Writing a review article quickly without sacrificing quality might seem like a tall order, but with the right approach, it’s entirely achievable.

Clearly Define Your Research Question

Clearly define your research question. A focused question not only narrows down the scope of your literature search but also keeps your review concise and on track.

By honing in on a specific aspect of a broader topic, you can avoid the common pitfall of becoming overwhelmed by the vast expanse of available literature. This specificity allows you to zero in on the most relevant studies, making your review more impactful.

Efficient Literature Searching

Utilise databases specific to your field and employ advanced search techniques like Boolean operators. This can drastically reduce the time you spend sifting through irrelevant articles.

Additionally, leveraging citation chains—looking at who has cited a pivotal paper in your area and who it cites—can uncover valuable sources you might otherwise miss.

Organise Your Findings Systematically

Developing a robust organisation strategy is key. As you gather sources, categorize them based on themes or methodologies.

This not only aids in structuring your review but also in identifying areas where research is lacking or abundant. Organize your findings based on the review paper format.

Tools like citation management software can be invaluable here, helping you keep track of your sources and their key points. We list out some of the best AI tools for academic research here.

Build An Outline Before Writing

Don’t underestimate the power of a well-structured outline. A clear blueprint of your article can guide your writing process, ensuring that each section flows logically into the next.

This roadmap not only speeds up the writing process by providing a clear direction but also helps maintain coherence, ensuring your review article delivers a compelling narrative that advances understanding in your field.

Start Writing With The Easiest Sections

When it’s time to write, start with sections you find easiest. This might be the methodology or a particular thematic section where you feel most confident.

Getting words on the page can build momentum, making it easier to tackle more challenging sections later.

Remember, your first draft doesn’t have to be perfect; the goal is to start articulating your synthesis of the literature.

Learn How To Write An Article Review

Mastering the review paper format is a crucial step towards efficient academic writing. By adhering to the structured components outlined, you can streamline the creation of a compelling review article.

Embracing these guidelines not only speeds up the writing process but also enhances the clarity and impact of your work, ensuring your contributions to scholarly discourse are both valuable and timely.

A review paper serves to synthesise existing data, offering a panoramic view of the current state of knowledge on a particular topic

A Review Paper Format Usually Contains What Sections?

You usually will see sections like introduction, literature review, methodology, analysis and findings, discussions, citation and conclusion.

How To Write A Review Paper Fast?

The key is to organize, pre-plan things out before writing it.

Dr Andrew Stapleton has a Masters and PhD in Chemistry from the UK and Australia. He has many years of research experience and has worked as a Postdoctoral Fellow and Associate at a number of Universities. Although having secured funding for his own research, he left academia to help others with his YouTube channel all about the inner workings of academia and how to make it work for you.

Thank you for visiting Academia Insider.

We are here to help you navigate Academia as painlessly as possible. We are supported by our readers and by visiting you are helping us earn a small amount through ads and affiliate revenue - Thank you!

Main Navigation

Contact NeurIPS
Code of Ethics
Code of Conduct
Create Profile
Journal To Conference Track
Diversity & Inclusion
Proceedings
Future Meetings
Exhibitor Information
Privacy Policy

NeurIPS 2024, the Thirty-eighth Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, will be held at the Vancouver Convention Center

Monday Dec 9 through Sunday Dec 15. Monday is an industry expo.

Registration

Pricing » Registration 2024 Registration Cancellation Policy »

Career Site Conference Hotels NeurIPS has contracted Hotel guest rooms for the Conference at group pricing, requiring reservations only through this page. Please do not make room reservations through any other channel, as it only impedes us from putting on the best Conference for you. We thank you for your assistance in helping us protect the NeurIPS conference.

Announcements

Financial Grant and Volunteer applications are open
The 2024 visa process has changed, see the Visa Information page for details.
The accepted competitions have been released.

Latest NeurIPS Blog Entries [ All Entries ]

Aug 23, 2024
Aug 02, 2024
Jun 19, 2024
Jun 04, 2024
May 17, 2024
May 07, 2024
Apr 17, 2024
Apr 15, 2024
Mar 03, 2024
Dec 11, 2023

Important Dates

	Mar 15 '24 11:46 AM PDT *
	Apr 05 '24 (Anywhere on Earth)
	Apr 21 '24 (Anywhere on Earth)
Main Conference Paper Submission Deadline	May 22 '24 01:00 PM PDT *
	May 22 '24 01:00 PM PDT *
	Jun 14 '24 (Anywhere on Earth)
	Sep 01 '24 06:00 AM PDT *
	Sep 05 '24 (Anywhere on Earth)
Main Conference Author Notification	Sep 25 '24 06:00 PM PDT *
Datasets and Benchmarks - Author Notification	Sep 26 '24 (Anywhere on Earth)
Financial Assistance and Volunteer Applications closed	Oct 01 '24 (Anywhere on Earth)
Workshop Accept/Reject Notification Date	Oct 09 '24 (Anywhere on Earth)
	Oct 23 '24 (Anywhere on Earth)
	Oct 30 '24 (Anywhere on Earth)
	Nov 15 '24 11:00 PM PST *
	Timezone:

If you have questions about supporting the conference, please contact us .

View NeurIPS 2024 exhibitors » Become an 2024 Exhibitor Exhibitor Info »

Organizing Committee

General chair, program chair, workshop chair, workshop chair assistant, tutorial chair, competition chair, data and benchmark chair, diversity, inclusion and accessibility chair, affinity chair, ethics review chair, communication chair, social chair, journal chair, creative ai chair, workflow manager, logistics and it, mission statement.

The Neural Information Processing Systems Foundation is a non-profit corporation whose purpose is to foster the exchange of research advances in Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning, principally by hosting an annual interdisciplinary academic conference with the highest ethical standards for a diverse and inclusive community.

About the Conference

The conference was founded in 1987 and is now a multi-track interdisciplinary annual meeting that includes invited talks, demonstrations, symposia, and oral and poster presentations of refereed papers. Along with the conference is a professional exposition focusing on machine learning in practice, a series of tutorials, and topical workshops that provide a less formal setting for the exchange of ideas.

More about the Neural Information Processing Systems foundation »

NeurIPS uses cookies to remember that you are logged in. By using our websites, you agree to the placement of cookies.

01. Drug Development Failure: How GLP-1 Development Was Abandoned in 1990

Jeffrey s. flier, perspectives in biology and medicine volume 67, number 3, summer 2024, 02 . working from home around the world, cevat giray aksoy , jose maria barrero , nicholas bloom , steven j. davis , mathias dolls , and pablo zarate, brookings papers on economic activity fall 2022, 03 . adaptive political economy: toward a new paradigm, yuen yuen ang, world politics 75th anniversary issue, advanced access , 04 . display of arms: a roundtable discussion about the public exhibition of firearms and their history, jennifer tucker , glenn adamson , jonathan s. ferguson , josh garrett-davis , erik goldstein , ashley hlebinsky , david d. miller , and susanne slavick, technology and culture volume 59, number 3, july 2018.

05. Exploring Social Determinants of Health in Healthy Aging Among Older Adults: A Qualitative Study

Maria cielito robles , bs, alison o'brien , mph, nishat islam , mph, a. camille mcbride , mph, casey l. corches , mph, msotl/r, maria mansour , sarah bailey , ma, erica thrash-sall , mba, and lesli e. skolarus , md, ms, progress in community health partnerships: research, education, and action volume 17, number 1, spring 2023 .

06 . “It Gives the Mother the Best Chance for Her Life”: U.S. Catholic Health Care and the Treatment of Ectopic Pregnancy

Jessica martucci, bulletin of the history of medicine volume 97, number 1, spring 2023, 07 . potentialities of applied translation for language learning in the era of artificial intelligence, javier muñoz-basols , craig neville , barbara a. lafford , and concepción godev, hispania volume 106, number 2, june 2023 , 08. authoritarian survival: why maduro hasn't fallen, javier corrales, journal of democracy volume 31, number 3, july 2020.

09 . White Women's Affect: Niceness, Comfort, and Neutrality as Cover for Racial Harm

Moira l. ozias, journal of college student development volume 64, number 1, january/february 2023.

10. Intimate Itinerancy: Sex, Work, and Chinese Women in Colonial Malaya's Brothel Economy, 1870s–1930s

Sandy f. chang, journal of women's history volume 33, number 4, winter 2021 .

11. Cultural Humility Versus Cultural Competence: A Critical Distinction in Defining Physician Training Outcomes in Multicultural Education

Melanie tervalon , jann murray-garcía, journal of health care for the poor and underserved volume 9, number 2, may 1998 .

12 . Spiritual Mother and Intellectual Sons: Emma Goldman and Young Chinese Anarchists

Rachel hui-chi hsu, twentieth-century china volume 46, number 3, october 2021 , 13 . afro hair in the time of slavery, mathelinda nabugodi, studies in romanticism volume 61, number 1, spring 2022 .

14 . Remediation

Jay david bolter and richard grusin, configurations volume 4, number 3, fall 1996, 15. untrue concepts in hegel's logic, mark alznauer, journal of the history of philosophy volume 61, number 1, january 2023 .

16. Adolescent Medical Transition is Ethical: An Analogy with Reproductive Health

Florence ashley, kennedy institute of ethics journal volume 32, number 2, june 2022.

17. Power, Threat, Meaning Framework: A Philosophical Critique

Alastair morgan , phd, philosophy, psychiatry, & psychology volume 30, number 1, march 2023.

18. Leaving; or, Wide Awake and Staring into Nothing (with Pet Shop Boys)

Mikko tuhkanen, postmodern culture volume 33, numbers 2 & 3, january 2023 & may 2023 .

19 . Browsing through Bias: The Library of Congress Classification and Subject Headings for African American Studies and LGBTQIA Studies

Sara a. howard and steven a. knowlton, library trends volume 67, number 1, summer 2018.

20. Origins of the US Genre-Fiction System, 1890–1956

Andrew goldstone, book history volume 26, issue 1, spring 2023 .

Skip to main content
Skip to search
Skip to footer

Products and Services

Black Belt Academy

Simplified and uniform role-based education framework.

Black Belt Academy helps Cisco partners and distribution in selling, deploying, troubleshooting, and renewing the latest technology and software solutions with enablement tools and programs. Access requires a CCO ID.

Are you a Cisco partner?

Black belt faqs, how is black belt relevant for me.

Black Belt Academy consolidates architecture trainings and structures them by role in one place.

Become a partner | Log in

Does Black Belt have training for my role?

Role	Track
Engineering	Presales, deployment/FE, Support/TAC, PSS/TAC
Sales	AMs, RMs, PSS, BDMs
Customer Experience (CX)	CSEP, CSM, renewals manager
Distribution	Marketeer, tech presales, account manager, CX specialist
Business Architect	Tool, engagement, method
New Hire	Sales New Hire Acceleration Program (SNAP) (introduction to Cisco portfolio)
Operations	Deal manager (GPR), software practice lead, partner admin, asset manager, CXO

How does Black Belt compare to other Cisco certifications?

Black Belt Academy acts as the bridge that brings you to the latest Cisco solutions at no cost.

Can everyone access Black Belt?

Black Belt Academy trainings are available for learners from Cisco partners and distributors. Access requires a Cisco login associated with your partner or distributor company.

How can I get started?

Black Belt benefits

One simplified enablement framework, uniform launch across cisco, greater selling proficiency, successful readiness and positioning of solutions, on-demand and up-to-date content, no-cost enablement, what customers are saying.

"Great platform. Learn the new technology anytime, anywhere. Kudos to the team who put that much effort to make it happen."

Gulf Business Machines

"Very well organized and presented in an elegant way."

Ingram Micro

"Excellent material."

NTT Ltd. Commerce Centre

"Great training; really helped me find some new questions to ask my clients and help grow the account."

Pivot Technology Solutions

"Great training. Appreciated the breakdown of the registration programs."

Long View Systems Corporation

"Excellent course, Cisco ACI in one hour, amazing. Well done, Cisco"

Bell Canada

Black Belt support

Have questions about Black Belt Academy or need support?

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

View all journals
Explore content
About the journal
Publish with us
Sign up for alerts
28 August 2024
Update 02 September 2024

Exclusive: the papers that most heavily cite retracted studies

Richard Van Noorden &
Miryam Naddaf

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

You have full access to this article via your institution.

Computer rendered illustration of a lone figure watching as a towering house of blank white cards collapses.

Credit: Waldemar Thaut/Zoonar via Alamy

In January, a review paper 1 about ways to detect human illnesses by examining the eye appeared in a conference proceedings published by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) in New York City. But neither its authors nor its editors noticed that 60% of the papers it cited had already been retracted.

The case is one of the most extreme spotted by a giant project to find papers whose results might be in question because they cite retracted or problematic research. The project’s creator, computer scientist Guillaume Cabanac at the University of Toulouse in France, shared his data with Nature ’s news team, which analysed them to find the papers that most heavily cite retracted work yet haven’t themselves been withdrawn (see ‘Retracted references’).

Chain retraction: how to stop bad science propagating through the literature

“We are not accusing anybody of doing something wrong. We are just observing that in some bibliographies, the references have been retracted or withdrawn, meaning that the paper may be unreliable,” Cabanac says. He calls his tool a Feet of Clay Detector, referring to an analogy, originally from the Bible, about statues or edifices that collapse because of their weak clay foundations.

The IEEE paper is the second-highest on the list assembled by Nature , with 18 of the 30 studies it cites withdrawn. Its authors didn’t respond to requests for comment, but IEEE integrity director Luigi Longobardi says that the publisher didn’t know about the issue until Nature asked, and that it is investigating.

Cabanac, a research-integrity sleuth, has already created software to flag thousands of problematic papers in the literature for issues such as computer-written text or disguised plagiarism . He hopes that his latest detector, which he has been developing over the past two years and describes this week in a Comment article in Nature , will provide another way to stop bad research propagating through the scientific literature — some of it fake work created by ‘papermill’ firms .

Further scrutiny

Cabanac lists the detector’s findings on his website , but elsewhere online — on the paper-review site PubPeer and on social media — he has explicitly flagged more than 1,700 papers that caught his eye because of their reliance on retracted work. Some authors have thanked Cabanac for alerting them to problems in their references. Others argue that it’s unfair to effectively cast aspersions on their work because of retractions made after publication that, they say, don’t affect their paper.

Scientific sleuths spot dishonest ChatGPT use in papers

Retracted references don’t definitively show that a paper is problematic, notes Tamara Welschot, part of the research-integrity team at Springer Nature in Dordrecht, the Netherlands, but they are a useful sign that a paper might benefit from further scrutiny. ( Nature ’s news team is independent of its publisher, Springer Nature.)

Some researchers argue that retraction of references in a narrative review — which describes the state of research in a field — doesn’t necessarily invalidate the original paper. But when studies assessed by a systematic review or meta-analysis are withdrawn, the results of that review should always be recalculated to keep the literature up to date, says epidemiologist Isabelle Boutron at Paris City University.

Retracted references

These studies have the highest proportion of retracted papers in their reference lists, according to Nature ’s analysis of articles flagged by the Feet of Clay Detector.

Year	Title of paper	Number of retracted studies in reference list
2012		33 of 51 (65%)
2023		18 of 30 (60%)
2024		46 of 77 (60%)
2012		25 of 53 (47%)
2001		25 of 53 (47%)
2016		15 of 33 (45%)
2012		40 of 125 (32%)
2013		18 of 57 (32%)
2012		47 of 225 (21%)
2023		12 of 58 (21%)

Source: Nature analysis of data from the Feet of Clay Detector . Figures for references and retractions were hand-checked and altered where necessary; detector data sources do not always give accurate counts.

Picking up fraudsters

Some of the papers that cite high proportions of retracted work are authored by known academic fraudsters who have had many of their own papers retracted.

These include engineering researcher Ali Nazari, who was dismissed from Swinburne University of Technology in Melbourne, Australia, in 2019, after a university misconduct investigation into his activities. He previously worked at Islamic Azad University in Saveh, Iran, and his current whereabouts are unclear. After Nature told publishers about his extant papers 2 , 3 topping Cabanac’s lists — including Elsevier and Fap-Unifesp, a non-profit foundation that supports the Federal University of São Paulo in Brazil — they said that they would look into the articles. One of the relevant journals was discontinued in 2013, Elsevier noted.

Cabanac’s detector also flags papers 4 by Chen-Yuan Chen, a computer scientist who worked at the National Pingtung University of Education in Taiwan until 2014. He was behind a syndicate that faked peer review and boosted citations, which came to light in 2014 after an investigation by the publisher SAGE. Some of Chen’s papers that are still in the literature were published by Springer Nature, which says it hadn’t been aware of the issue but is now investigating. Neither Chen nor Nazari responded to Nature ’s requests for comment.

Another flagged study 5 is by Ahmad Salar Elahi, a physicist affiliated with the Islamic Azad University in Tehran who has already had dozens of his papers retracted, in many cases because of excessive self-citation and instances of faked peer review. In 2018, the website Retraction Watch (which also wrote about the Nazari and Chen cases) reported that according to Mahmoud Ghoranneviss, then-director of the Plasma Physics Research Centre where Elahi worked, Elahi was likely to be dismissed from the university. Now, Ghoranneviss — who has retired — says that Elahi was barred only from that centre and not the rest of the university. Elahi continues to publish papers, sometimes listing co-authors including Ghoranneviss, who says he wasn’t aware of this. Neither Elahi nor the university responded to Nature ’s queries. The IEEE and Springer Nature, publishers of the journals that ran the Elahi papers, say they’re investigating.

Unhappy authors

Some authors are unhappy about Cabanac’s work. In May 2024, editors of the journal Clinical and Translational Oncology placed an expression of concern on a 2019 review paper 6 about RNA and childhood cancers, warning that it might not be reliable because it cited “a number of articles that have been retracted”. The journal’s publishing editor, Ying Jia at Springer Nature in Washington DC, says the team was alerted by one of Cabanac’s posts on social media last year.

Guillaume Cabanac poses for a portrait on the Paul Sabatier University campus.

Computer scientist Guillaume Cabanac has flagged more than 1,700 papers that caught his eye because of their reliance on retracted work. Credit: Fred Scheiber/SIPA/Shutterstock

Cabanac’s analysis finds that just under 10% of the article’s 637 references have been retracted — almost all after the review was published. However, the paper’s corresponding author, María Sol Brassesco, a biologist at the University of São Paulo, says that removing these references doesn’t change the conclusions of the review, and that she has sent the journal an updated version, which it hasn’t published. Because the cited works were retracted after publication, the expression of concern “felt like we were being punished for something that we could not see ahead”, she says. Jia says that editors felt that adding the notice was the most appropriate action.

In other cases, authors disagree about what to do. Nature examined three papers 7 , 8 , 9 in which between 5 and 16% of the references have now been retracted, all co-authored by Mohammad Taheri, a genetics PhD student at Friedrich Schiller University of Jena in Germany. He says that criticisms of his work on PubPeer “lack solid scientific basis”. Yet, in May, a co-author of two of those works, Marcel Dinger, dean of science at the University of Sydney in Australia, told the website For Better Science and Retraction Watch that he was reassessing review papers that cited retracted articles. He now says that his team has submitted corrections for the works, but Frontiers, which published one paper, says it hasn’t received the correspondence and will investigate. Elsevier — which published the other two papers — also says that it is examining the issue.

Catching problems early

Examples in which papers cite already-retracted work suggest that publishers could do a better job of screening manuscripts. For instance, 20 studies cited by a 2023 review paper 10 about RNA and gynaecological cancers in Frontiers in Oncology had been retracted before the article was submitted. Review co-author Maryam Mahjoubin-Tehran, a pharmacist at Mashhad University of Medical Sciences in Iran, told Nature that her team didn’t know about the retractions, and does not plan to update or withdraw the paper. The publisher, Frontiers, says it is investigating.

Until recently, publishers have not flagged citations to retracted papers in submitted manuscripts. However, many publishers say they are aware of Cabanac’s tool and monitor issues he raises, and some are bringing in similar screening tools.

Last year, Wiley announced it was checking Retraction Watch’s database of retracted articles to flag issues in reference lists, and Elsevier says it is also rolling out a tool that assesses manuscripts for red flags such as self-citations and references to retracted work. Springer Nature is piloting an in-house tool to look for retracted papers in manuscript citations and Longobardi says the IEEE is considering including Feet of Clay or similar solutions in its workflow. A working group for the STM Integrity Hub — a collaboration between publishers — has also tested the Feet of Clay Detector and “found it useful”, says Welschot.

Medical trend

Medical reviews that cite studies in areas later shown to be affected by fraud are a recurring theme in Cabanac’s findings.

In theory, meta-analyses or systematic reviews should be withdrawn or corrected if work they have cited goes on to be retracted, according to a policy issued in 2021 by the Cochrane Collaboration, an international group known for its gold-standard reviews of medical treatments .

Boutron, who directs Cochrane France in Paris, is using Cabanac’s tool to identify systematic reviews that cite retracted work, and to assess the impact the retracted studies had on the overall results.

However, a 2022 study 11 suggests that authors are often reluctant to update reviews, even when they are told the papers cite retracted work. Researchers e-mailed the authors of 88 systematic reviews that cited now-retracted studies in bone health by a Japanese fraudster, Yoshihiro Sato . Only 11 of the reviews were updated, the authors told Nature last year.

Retraction alerts

Authors aren’t routinely alerted if work cited in their past papers is withdrawn — although in recent years, paper-management tools for researchers such as Zotero and EndNote have incorporated Retraction Watch’s open database of retracted papers and have begun to flag papers that have been taken down. Cabanac thinks publishers might use tools like his to create similar alerts.

In 2016, researchers at the University of Oxford, UK, began developing a tool called RetractoBot , which automatically notifies authors by e-mail when a study that they have previously cited has been retracted. The software currently monitors 20,000 retracted papers and about 400,000 papers, published after 2000, that cite them. The team behind it is running a randomized trial to see whether papers flagged by RetractoBot are subsequently cited less than those not flagged by the tool, and will publish its results next year, says project lead Nicholas DeVito, a integrity researcher at Oxford.

The team has alerted more than 100,000 researchers so far. DeVito says that a minority of authors are annoyed about being contacted, but that others are grateful. “We are merely trying to provide a service to the community to reduce this practice from happening,” he says.

Nature 633 , 13-15 (2024)

doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-02719-5

Updates & Corrections

Update 02 September 2024 : This story has been updated to include mention of a website that reported Marcel Dinger’s comments relating to the citation of retracted papers.

Sandhiya, M. & Aneetha, A. S. 9th Intl Conf. Smart Struct. Syst . 1–4 (2023).

Nazari, A. Mater. Res. 15 , 383–396 (2012).

Article Google Scholar

Nazari, A., Khalaj, G. & Riahi, S. Math. Comput. Model. 55 , 1339–1353 (2012).

Shih, B.-Y., Chen, T.-H., Cheng, M.-H., Chen, C.-Y. & Chen, B.-W. Nat. Hazards 65 , 1637–1652 (2013).

Salar Elahi, A. & Ghoranneviss, M. IEEE Trans. Plasma Sci. 41 , 334–340 (2013).

Viera, G. M. et al. Clin. Transl. Oncol. 21 , 1583–1623 (2019); editorial expression of concern 26 , 1806 (2024).

Taheri, M. et al. Exp. Molec. Pathol . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yexmp.2021.104602 (2021).

Taheri, M. et al. Front. Mol. Biosci . https://doi.org/10.3389/fmolb.2021.665199 (2021).

Ghafouri-Fard, S. et al. Biomed. Pharmacotherapy 137 , 111279 (2021).

Rezaee, A. et al. Front. Oncol. 13 , 1215194 (2023).

Article PubMed Google Scholar

Avenell, A., Bolland, M. J., Gamble, G. D. & Grey, A. Account. Res. 31 , 14–37 (2022).

Download references

Reprints and permissions

Supplementary Information

NEWS Retracted references Supplementary Information 2024

Peer review

The human costs of the research-assessment culture

Career Feature 09 SEP 24

Publishing nightmare: a researcher’s quest to keep his own work from being plagiarized

News 04 SEP 24

Cash for errors: project offers bounty for spotting mistakes in published papers

Technology Feature 19 AUG 24

Intellectual property and data privacy: the hidden risks of AI

Career Guide 04 SEP 24

Postdoctoral fellow in computational biology

We are searching for a highly motivated postdoc interested in developing and applying computational approaches to understand how blood cell clones ...

Gothenburg (Kommun), Västra Götaland (SE)

University of Gothenburg

Faculty Positions in School of Engineering, Westlake University

The School of Engineering (SOE) at Westlake University is seeking to fill multiple tenured or tenure-track faculty positions in all ranks.

Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China

Westlake University

Postdoctoral Associate- Genetic Epidemiology

Houston, Texas (US)

Baylor College of Medicine (BCM)

NOMIS Foundation ETH Postdoctoral Fellowship

The NOMIS Foundation ETH Fellowship Programme supports postdoctoral researchers at ETH Zurich within the Centre for Origin and Prevalence of Life ...

Zurich, Canton of Zürich (CH)

Centre for Origin and Prevalence of Life at ETH Zurich

13 PhD Positions at Heidelberg University

GRK2727/1 – InCheck Innate Immune Checkpoints in Cancer and Tissue Damage

Heidelberg, Baden-Württemberg (DE) and Mannheim, Baden-Württemberg (DE)

Medical Faculties Mannheim & Heidelberg and DKFZ, Germany

Quick links

Explore articles by subject
Guide to authors
Editorial policies

IMAGES

Best Research Papers From ACL 2020
How to write a research paper 2020
Top 3 Artificial Intelligence Research Papers
How To Write And Publish Research Paper 2020
A Complete Guide to Research Papers
Research Paper 2020

VIDEO

Dr. Sinert
Digital FUTURES Talk: Best SIGraDi Research 2022
Best topics for nursing research . Nursing students
1ST INTERNATIONAL ARABIAN-GULF SECURITY CONFERENCE AWARDS
Digital FUTURES Talk / Spanish: Mejores Investigaciones SIGraDi 2022
Different Types of Research Papers

COMMENTS

The top 10 journal articles of 2020
In 2020, APA's 89 journals published more than 5,000 articles—the most ever and 25% more than in 2019. Here's a quick look at the 10 most downloaded to date. By Chris Palmer Date created: January 1, 2021 8 min read
Journal Top 100
Journal Top 100. This collection highlights our most downloaded* research papers published in 2020. Featuring authors from around the world, these papers showcase valuable research from an ...
2020 Top 50 Life and Biological Sciences Articles
2020 Top 50 Life and Biological Sciences Articles
Google Scholar reveals its most influential papers for 2020
It has made a huge leap from 25,256 citations in 2019 to 49,301 citations in 2020. "Deep learning", a seminal review of the potential of AI technologies that was published in Nature in 2015 ...
Top 50 cited articles on Covid-19 after the first year of the pandemic
The top 50 cited articles on this subject would help identify trends and focus on the research efforts. ... ("2020/01/01"[Date - Create]: "2021/01/01"[Date - Create])) ... The top 50 cited articles were selected from this output and full texts collected and analysed for the purpose of this paper. We looked into the following information ...
SJR : Scientific Journal Rankings
SJR : Scientific Journal Rankings
The 100 most-cited scientific papers
Here at Science we love ranking things, so we were thrilled with this list of the top 100 most-cited scientific papers, courtesy of Nature.Surprisingly absent are many of the landmark discoveries you might expect, such as the discovery of DNA's double helix structure. Instead, most of these influential manuscripts are slightly more utilitarian in nature.
Our most popular papers of 2020
We've scoured Altmetric data to bring you the top ten most talked about Reading-authored papers of the past year. The 2020 Lancet Countdown report on health and climate change: responding to converging crises. Climate change could lead to global healthcare systems being overwhelmed in the same way they have been during the current COVID-19 ...
Top Recent Research Items by Number of Citations
Top Recent Research Items by Number of Citations
Protein Science best papers for 2020
Protein Science. best papers for 2020. The winners of the 2020 Protein Science Best Paper awards are Yu‐Ting Huang (Figure 1) from National Chung Hsing University, Taiwan, and Samuel Junod (Figure 2 ), and Joseph Kelich (Figure 3) from Temple University, USA. Dr. Huang, working in the lab of Pei‐Fen Liu, made the unexpected finding that ATP ...
McKinsey 2020 business articles: The year in review
Explore McKinsey's most popular, innovative insights from a year of tremendous change—2020's top articles and reports, charts, images, podcasts, webinars, newsletters, and more. ... McKinsey's State of Fashion report offers the best of our research and insights into the fashion industry. Our 2025 edition will be released in November ...
The Top 100 Most Cited Articles Published in Dentistry: 2020 Update
Of the top 100 articles, 26% focused on periodontology (Feijoo et al., periodontology: 43%), while 17% of the total were published in the Journal of Dental Research (Feijoo et al., Journal of Clinical Periodontology: 20%). Most of the publications were narrative reviews/expert opinion (36%), (Feijoo et al., case series: 22%), and were within ...
Top 10 Computer Vision Papers 2020
Top 10 Computer Vision Papers 2020
The top 100 papers : Nature News & Comment
The top 100 papers
The 10 Most Significant Education Studies of 2020
1. To Teach Vocabulary, Let Kids Be Thespians. When students are learning a new language, ask them to act out vocabulary words. It's fun to unleash a child's inner thespian, of course, but a 2020 study concluded that it also nearly doubles their ability to remember the words months later. Researchers asked 8-year-old students to listen to ...
TJ Honors TWO Best Research Papers for 2020
For the first time since the award's inception in 2006, two papers have been selected as TAPPI Journal Best Research Paper for 2020. "The six papers that were nominated this year covered a wide range of the entire pulp, paper, and supplier industries, making the selection extremely challenging," said Peter W. Hart, Ph.D., TAPPI Journal editor-in-chief.
Most Read 2020
Return to Most Read Articles in 2020 Collection. Annual Reviews is a nonprofit publisher with a mission to synthesize and integrate knowledge for the progress of science and the benefit of society. We currently publish 51 highly cited journals in the Biomedical, Life, Physical, and Social Sciences, including Economics.
PDF The Impact of Covid-19 on Student Experiences and Expectations
The Impact of COVID-19 on Student Experiences and ...
TAPPI Journal Awards Two Best Research Papers for 2020
The $2,000 cash prize is endowed by Professor Emeritus Honghi Tran, Ph.D., of the University of Toronto and author or co-author of more than 80 papers published in TJ. His body of work also includes co-authoring the second winning paper for 2020, "Modeling of the energy of a smelt-water explosion in the recovery boiler dissolving tank ...
Search
Find the research you need | With 160+ million publication pages, 1+ million questions, and 25+ million researchers, this is where everyone can access science
[Research] The best AI papers of 2020 with a clear video demo ...
307 votes, 26 comments. The best AI papers of 2020 with a clear video demo, short read, paper, and code for each of them. In-depth Medium article…
Journal Top 100
Journal Top 100
Review Paper Format: How To Write A Review Article Fast
Review Paper Format: How To Write A Review Article Fast
NeurIPS
NeurIPS - 2024 Conference ... NeurIPS 2024
The 5 most popular scientific papers of August 2020 in the ...
The 5 most popular scientific papers of August 2020 in ...
Top 20 Articles of August 2024
We round up the summer of 2024 with the most-read articles of August. From the forthcoming issue of Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, Jeffrey S. Flier tells the story of attempting to bring a therapeutic agent to market in "Drug Development Failure: How GLP-1 Development Was Abandoned in 1990" — easily our most-read article on Project MUSE this month.
Cisco Black Belt Academy Certification
Cisco Black Belt Academy Certification
Exclusive: the papers that most heavily cite retracted studies
Cabanac, a research-integrity sleuth, has already created software to flag thousands of problematic papers in the literature for issues such as computer-written text or disguised plagiarism.